Legal Subteam Documents & Input Received

RESPONSES FROM SIDLEY AUSTIN, ADLER & COLVIN

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890082

---------------------------------------

CCWG ACCT Meeting # 37 (16 June)

Attendees

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon Orr, Eberhard Lisse, Izumi Okutani, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman,Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Olga Calavalli, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa (20)

Participants: Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Damien Coudeville, David McAuley, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Keith Drazek, Konstantinos Komaitis, Phil Buckingham, Sabine Meyer, Yasuichi Kitamura (12)

Legal Counsel: Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit, Tyler Hilton (7)

Staff: Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb,Hillary Jett, Kim Carlson

Apologies:  Giovanni Seppia, Martin Boyle

**Please let Kim know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p9lnvfo9jiy/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-16jun15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

1. Welcome, Roll Call & SOI 

2. Agenda for the CCWG working session Friday 19 June (Buenos Aires)

3. Feedback on the legal advice for governments

4. AoB

Notes

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS:

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

 

Thomas Rickert, Greg Shatan are on phone only.

Reminder to update your SoI per Charter requirements.

 

Agenda for CCWG working session - 19 June

Goals for this meeting:

1. Agree on assessment of comments and drafting responses

2. Define key message for community engagement

3 Refine working methods in anticipation of public comment period #2

Reading list will include WPs' documents. 

Freeze deadline is today - 23:59 UTC.

WPs are currently summarizing comments. It will be key substance for the 19 June meeting. We will identify items which require further discussion. We would like to try holding a debate on enforceability, cooperative model vs. membership model. Call for volunteers: supporter for cooperative approach (internal Bylaws) and vice versa. Objective is to obtain better understanding of perspectives. 

This meeting will also be opportunity to start reflection on response to NTIA letter

We will prepare for set of meetings we have scheduled and agree on messaging. 

- Request to change layout of debate and title - set of tools and options can be considered. Sebastien volunteers for agenda item #4

ACTION ITEM Clarify title of agenda item #4 

- Presentation of perspectives - we should not be polarizing the debate

ACTION ITEM: Staff/CoChairs to finalize 19 June agenda

Deadline for documents is 23:59 UTC

---

Feedback on the legal advice 

Is it mandatory to file the statement with the State Department for forming UA: answer no, recommend as evidence, we do file, but not mandatory.

Filing fees are $25 dollars

Question - Obligation UA reports, or assemblies, administrative issues, structures they need to fulfill.

UAs have no obligation of informing anyone about their activities unless they are active. 

Question with regards to taxation: other duties that may be required by law to be fulffilled - answer: no obligation to file any tax declaration unless UA had economical activities – subject to filing tax declarations as needed.

No intention of looking into multiple jurisdictions 

Any UA would be an envelope carrying the message to enforce powers. 

Consequences need to be considered. 

Can we have a membership organization where SO/ACs are indicated to be members in Bylaws without having them be a legal entity? Would it be an illegal construct? 

--> It is not possible. As a threshold, members must be a legal person 

- What enforceability means and how it would be used in practice.

- Suggestion to stop discussion and to discuss all 3 options in BA once we have big picture. 

- ACTION ITEM: Read legal counsel's memos in preparation for Buenos Aires

- We need to look at requirements - how requirements are different according to models and prioritize based on that. Think deeply about underlying requirements as that will be key for the debate. 

- Idea that building something to handle worst behaviors. We need to assume that people are not doing what they need to do.

- How can we ensure the person is following SO/AC instructions?

 

AOB

- We have reached out to all SO/ACs - we have responded to all requests and have not turned down any requests. It is still possible to accommodate requests.

- Worry about the number of lawyers that we have participating in calls and the money that is being spent. 1 from each firm is enough. 

ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to sit down with firms in BA to clarify process going forward to manage costs.

Action Items

ACTION ITEM Clarify title of agenda item #4 

ACTION ITEM: Staff/CoChairs to finalize 19 June agenda

ACTION ITEM: Read legal counsel's memos in preparation for Buenos Aires

ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to sit down with firms in BA to clarify process going forward to manage costs

-----------------------------------------------

CCWG ACCT Meeting # 36 (9 June)

Attendees

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon Orr, Giovanni Seppia, Izumi Okutani, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Mejier, Samantha Eisner, Steve DelBianco, Sebastien Bachollet, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa  (18)

Participants: Amrita Choudhury, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Chris Disspain, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Finn Peterson, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Martin Boyle, Oanh Nguyen, Paul Szyndler, Wisdom Maduka, Yasuichi Kitamura  (17)

Legal Counsel: Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Josh Hofheimer, Miles Fuller, Rosemary Fei  (7)

Staff: Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Kim Carlson, Marika Koning, Laena Rahim

Apologies:  Alice Munyua, Eberhard Lisse, Greg Shatan, Olga Cavalli


Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT #36_9 June.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT #36_9 June.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p73zcr504l8/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-09jun15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

1. Welcome, Roll-Call & SoI;
2. Review of the public comments received on Draft Proposals;
3. A.O.B

Notes

Review of the public comments received on Draft Proposals;

Review of how we will approach our work
We agreed to an initial run through by the whole group of public comments received. Before allocation to the sub-groups, so all see where were are.

So were will go through the public comment (PC) review tool, and see how to allocate those areas to the working parties (WP) The recommendation is:

Revised Mission, Commitments & Core Values
Fundamental Bylaws
Independent Review Panel Enhancement
Reconsideration Process Enhancement
Mechanism to empower the Community 
These to WP2

Mechanism to empower the Community and powers to WP1

The section of Bylaws Suggested by Stress Tests to the stress test team

Public Comment Input, Framework and Items for Consideration in Work Stream 2 will be reviewed by the whole group.

We will build consensus in an iterative fashion. From topics where we have convergence to work on the topics where we have divergence. 

You will see in the review tool that all comments received for a particular question have been grouped together. 

ASO representatives have described in the past how we interact with our community, generally through the RIR meetings.  The most recent RIR meeting was last week, and we received some comments, both verbal and in email.  We still need to deliver those comments to the CCWG, more comments to insert into the process.  For transparency purposes, how best to do this?

Understand groups have their own processes and timelines for meeting.  Suggest you add to the comment process and follow the deadline for other language comments which is Friday June 12  at 23:59 UTC. 

General discussion

Who responded to the comment period?

Question: is the distribution of comments telling us something?  Is it covering the stakeholders we were seeking, is it lacking?

From SO/AC, from GNSO constituencies.  Significant number of governments, and of ccTLDs.  Strong from US business organizations and some international.

Personal comment:  that while there are comments from the US-led private sector, European business seems missing.  Comments from 4 advisors.  

From outside the direct ICANN community - IAB and some comments from organizations in India. 

ICANN focused.  External observers might say outreach not sufficient. 

What parts of the report drew the most comments

The Mechanism to empower community  and unincorporated associations (UA).  Comments on IRP, and some good recommendations on improvements.  Comments on votes and voting powers.  Divergence on the introduction of a fundamental bylaw on location of ICANN HQ in the US.   

About the need for greater participation and inclusion.   The need to maintain the multistakeholder community.

But it seems the comments reflect debates we had in our group, which suggests we are anticipating the broader concerns and interests. 

General comments

Tighter principles and core values are important.  The community's own accountability and participation was noted.

Need to take specific steps to ensure Board/ staff adopt what the CCWG recommends

Focus on the board. Need a deeper look at management and staff, which also need to be held accountable 

ICANN must be clear and transparent in all aspects. Comments suggesting implementation in full before the ending of the IANA contract

Need to broaden ICANN to become an international organization, and representative of the global public

Non-supportive statements, identify substantive issues and flag these. Introduced and then share perspectives

Most general comments are supportive.  Exceptions.  Including from .NA - that the whole process is in contradiction with our charter.  And Roberto Bissio, advisor, who would have liked us to move to considerations of an international organization.

See general support for the building blocks and the general approach

How to deal with issues raised in a factual way.  What comments are being made and who is associating with them.  The weight of the comments.  Criticisms, suggested improvements.  

Look at level of support.  Example support for the building blocks, except for one suggestion that an additional block for staff was necessary.  If we have agreement on the building blocks, can we ask for consensus support for this.

There are calls for enforcement, and is clearly an area for further work.  

Same comments repeat in contributions:  member model, enforceability, role of staff. 

Categories.  Another sub-category.  e.g recall the board.  For, against, and then with or without any improvement.  

Look at the source of comments - outreach is not what we expected. 

Lack of issues with our approach.  The way we went about the overall project was not criticize the way went went about the work except Namibia .NA Eberhard Lisse.  

Criticism about the shorter public comment period.  Note there is a second opportunity to respond to work product in a second 40 day PC period

Suggest that great outreach needed.  And should acknowledge this.  And analyze what groups and regions were reached, etc.  

Request about jurisdiction. Unless you disagree, suggest we defer jurisdiction to other areas on the report.  And we would be working on jurisdiction in WS2. And that should be our response if you agree. Await the group's decision on this.

Approach on jurisdiction, can't just be move to WS2.  Should review in light of comments, and perhaps the decision would be the same.  If WS2 then an explanation as to why and how is will be dealt with.  Something for the whole CCWG rather than within a WP

The role of staff and the community, how can the community be held accountable? Comments on this by our advisors. Need more thought on this.

Staff accountability, we were thinking this came under board accountability.  Views of the group on this would be useful.

Some discussion of what the staff does, our discussion was that the board is responsible for staff and accountability would be backed up by the IRP and reconsideration process.

Community accountability needs more work.  Comments on the role of Governments, and this is also referred to in other sections of the report.  Some requests for definitions of the terms we use, such as "public interest"

Definition of public interest could take all of our time.  And to not look at staff accountability, this goes to micro-management.  

A limited mission statement could provide limits to what ICANN addresses in terms of the public interest.  

Comment on stress test.  

Impact analysis vs stress test, a request from the board.  Should it be a separate action item from the group 

Community seems to like what's being done, in general terms.  

Impact analysis.  When adopting the powers in the community mechanism, this would have impact on the whole community,  Would the member structure introduce new stresses on the organization.  Think minimal as only enforcing devisions not revising.  

Generally supportive.   Some confuse the notion of jurisdiction and ICANN's location of incorporation. 

2 GAC comments, that we parked stress 21. One GAC member differed on text 18.  Danish govt that we should look at potential capture of ICANN by other elements of the community.  Test 12 addresses, but deeper dive suggested.  2 new test: enforcing ICANN contracts.  What if the contracts have contradictions with the newly limited mission statement.  Suggestion to remove test 14.  

Analyze if comments are supportive, are they repeating these already taken into account, to they add new elements and then how to incorporate those ideas.  

There should be possibility of appeal process to be binding. Call should always be available. Handling binding decision without going to Court will be difficult. 

We might need to distinguish governements or others in terms of resort. There are trade-offs we will need to deal with.

Several comments pointed to suggestion that a party would not have standing in front of IRP unless it has participated in comment period. 

There is a WP2 call on Wednesday at 21:00 UTC.

Reconsideration Process Enhancement

Supportive comments. Relationship between IRP and reconsideration was raised. Composition of panel and independence from ICANN legal were mentionned several times. There was a comment asking whether we had considered decisions from external panels. 

Some refinement will be needed. Reconsideration and IRP are complementary to each other - they do not replace each other. We should not go to IRP directly. 

Clarification on how these interact is needed. 

Mechanism to Empower the Community

Different comments received on mechanisms to empower community seem to be supportive. However, there is still discussion. Main concern is how will community mechanism will be held accountable to SO/ACs.

We have to be able to present a coherent explanation. 

Leading community to Court is another concern that was raised. The fact that the proposal considers membership model as the most viable way to achieve powers was raised. There were calls for discussion on whether designators model is viable and whether Chairs of SO/ACs should be designated as members. There are many members that this will carry complexity.

Complexity is payment for process. Issue of membership has been properly mentioned in several legal assessments. If we want powers we need to go for membership models. There is no simple way. 

Either way: designators or members - we would need to form unincorporated associations. 

RSSAC and SSAC mindset that they want to remain advisory and GAC concerns about joining system that is member-driven. There are a lot of parameters we need to take into account. It is important to factually comments we are receiving and moving the discussion forward. 

We should give ability to participate in all powers to whole community

In order to have powers, we need to have SO/ACs become UAs, it is for legal enforceability only. There are alternative possibilities: e,g, Bylaws. We should not conclude that UA is only way.

Power Reconsider/reject budget or strategy/operating plans

We have received a lot of support. Two caveats: 1) need for consultation process between Board and community to ensure it does not have to exercised (because it is disruptive) - we need to be clearer on that requirement; 2) There might be a back and forth between community and Board - we already have something in our proposal to prevent that but we might need to be more transparent on what it is. 

Power: Approve Changes to "Fundamental Bylaws" 

There are some concerns about time limits to 15 days to initiate. There are threshold related comments. 

Power: Reconsider/Reject Changes to ICANN "standard" Bylaws.

Most comments are supportive. There are comments on whether should be implementable Bylaw.

Is the Board being descriptive ot today or endorsing the change we are recommending.  There should be some clarification.

It's not black and white - Board takes into account public comment. 

Power : Recalling Individual ICANN Directors

Broadly supported power. There is a comment from .NA that is an overarching objection. A comment from AFRALO is not supportive. We have requests for refinement of process. Question of how to deal with NomCom appointed Board members still needs to be resolved.

AFRALO did not object but asks for recall to be done by whole community. 

If we are to remove individual members it should be a community action. There is difference on which way it should be. We need clartiy from legal counsel on what is legal and what is not. We should only be removing people for cause that could be documented and presumably appealed. We need guidance from counsel on to what extent legal or exceptional.

Do ACs that do not designate are still called designators - do they have that power? We need a table to understand who exersice power on what conditions. 

It is up to SO/ACs to decide if there should be any members or designators.

What is SO/AC position if they don't want or can't be a member? Could they participate or not?

Power: Recalling the entire ICANN Board

Concerns about potential disruption: caretaker etc. We need to elaborate on this. 

Incorporating AoC into ICANN Bylaws

Supportive comments but highlight to take into consideration different approaches and current situation. Some comments that need to be incorporated into Bylaws. Concerns with respect to ICANN being incorporated into the United States. 

Wide support for incorporating review into Bylaws. 

There are also comment with respect to language of ICANN being a private sector - governments have raised participation on equal footing.

We should talk about provisions.Voting capacity: director or SO. 

How the AoC progresses - we may want to define that. 

Bylaws changes suggested by Stress Tests

There is support but there is considerable discussion with respect to stress test 18. This work will be taken on by Steve and Cheryl. 

Items for Work Stream 2

Work Stream 2 comments should that we need to be clear on demonstrating Work Stream does not mean we are putting a topic under the carpet. 

Jurisdiction was highlighted several times as important.

Board - Staff was brought up several times. It was more about transparency than redress part.

Whether we should introduce the assessment of efficiency of Work Stream 1 mechanisms was raised. Abstract will be undertaken by Cochairs.

Three tasks for Work Parties:

- WP to go through allocated sections and draft responses for CCWG response/action items. Preparation of feedback

- Classify feedback received and state whether agreement or not so that we can take stock of that and proceed to consensus building.

--> These two items need to be completed before June 16 freeze. 

- Digesting input. 

Suggestion to move steps around. 

17-18 July face-to-face meeting will be held in Paris. 

Action Items

Documents Presented

CCWG-ACCT Public Comment - 8 June.pdf

-------------------------------------------------

CCWG Leadership and Lawyers (5 June)

Attendees: 


Members:  Becky Burr, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Steve DelBianco

Legal Counsel:   Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, Josh Hofheimer,  Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit

Staff:   Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Kim Carlson

Apologies:  

Notes

Objective: Refine aspects of relationship between council and CCWG and clarify concerns that have been raised during CCWG calls these past weeks: whether the membership model is best way to go or whether there are other options. 

There still is confusion on models. Regardless of choosing membership or designators, we would still need to form UAs for each model. There seems to be belief that UAs would not be necessary with designator model. 

-> Council recommends enforcing UA for both. Interpretation from current Bylaws is that you have designators model that are not legal persons outside of ICANN. Should any of their rights be eliminated or not granted, they would have no external recourse because there is no person who could have standing to call others to account. This may be where the confusion lies. The reason it has persisted is that the California law specificially requires that members be separate legal persons where law is not as clear on this requirement. Interpretation is that it is. If you decide enforceability is far less important, perhaps then you don't need persons and can stick to designators but not all powers can be given through designators model. 

ACTION ITEM: Clarify with larger group that UAs apply to both designators and membership. 

The ability to have an enforceable IANA functions review process - required by CWG - is also important. 

If we choose not to go for membership model, a dependency to CWG would not be respected. Plain designators model would not meet the needs. 

ACTION ITEM: point us to existing memos where aspects of designators model information is available.

The volunteer model is the model we are currently in. are there ways to tweak the volunteer model to not go to Court but to make it enforceable? 

- The IFR recommendations would go to the board.  If the board refused to implement the changes, community could do an IRP.  Couldn't that reverse the Board's decision? If Board agrees to be bound by that IRP decision OK but if Board disagrees with IRP decision and not changing action. Question is who ultimately will have power to enforce? Community has to have power to enforce their view and potentially override the Board. 

The designators model could still sue in Court to enforce IRP decision. 

A court will not typically recognize a non legal person as having standing. Individual or company could go to Court but if the community or one of the SGs that does not exist as a person, the person you are trying to enforce against could say there is no complainant. It is a threshold issue. A court will not recognize a designator that does not have a legal person.Your IRP procedures can allow non-person to appear but no court will allow someone who does not have standing to come to them. 

There is belief that cost of enforceability is too high: 1) UA complexity; 2) creating the status of members/designators would open flood gates of SO/ACs of running to Court and bypassing IRP, public comment process and would create risk of running to Court constantly. We need help there. 

If we had no members and created binding arbitration in the Bylaws, who would the Bylaws be at contract with? In absence of members, who are the Bylaws/the contract with? 

The most approrpiate way to enforce IRP process is to have legal persons on both sides: legal person for legal members/designators and agrees roles and responsibilities through contract to be bound by IRP process. They will be compelled to go through arbitration and Courts will defer to that decision. You had an IRP process: ICANN on one side but no legal person on other side. The IRP is only way that somebody can act. If they have a claim they can only go through IRP. Ultimately that depends upon voluntary compliance by ICANN. 

What if someone filed an IRP and ICANN entered into the IRP. Decision to enter inter arbitration said to be binding- would that work or would directors have fiduciary duty to look behind? The Board cannot agree to make IRP binding in current structure because it has a fiduciary obligation to make decisions in best interest of organization.

-> The Board can agree but it is voluntary. 

Absent a membership model, it is status quo regarding enforceability?

If you have legal persons on other side, they can enforce IRP. The membership model refers to member vote the three community powers. 

ACTION ITEM: Clarify questions we want addressed and certify the GAC questions. Mathieu to be the leadership point of contact., Holly and Rosemary to be to the lawyers point of contact. 

No filing is required: we are trying to get formal response. 

Important to avoid getting into too much detail and information sent simultaneously. Triage is needed. We need to have these in preparation for GAC meeting in BA. We need an orderly way. 

Demonstrate: Internal voluntary annd designators model: some powers are not workable and where they fail to be workable. Chart should show how it impacts CCWG proposal.

Enforceable means that a Court could enforce the community's vote to block a Bylaws change. Court should not interpret that decision but rather check whether it is being enforced or not. 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Clarify with larger group that UAs apply to both designators and membership

ACTION ITEM: point us to existing memos where aspects of designators model information is available.

ACTION ITEM: Clarify questions we want addressed and certify the GAC questions. Mathieu to be the leadership point of contact., Holly and Rosemary to be to the lawyers point of contact. 

Transcript

Transcript CCWG acct Leadership and Lawyers 5 June.doc

Transcript CCWG Acct Leadership and Lawyers 5 June.pdf

Recordings

Adobe Connect Recording can be accessed here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1jpfb18j03/

MP3 Recording link can be accessed here:  CCWG ACCT Leadership & Lawyers.mp3


--------------------------------------------------

CCWG ACCT Meeting # 35 (2 June)

Attendees: 

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon Orr, Eberhart Lisse, Fiona Asonga, Giovanni Seppia, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Olga Calavali, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert (21)

Participants:  Akinbo Adebunmi, Kavouss Arasteh, Avri Doria, Bob Takacs, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Elise Lindeberg, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Keith Drazek, Kevin Espinola, Malcolm Hutty, Petro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Sivasubramania Muthusamy (18)

Legal Counsel:  Holly Gregory, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei, Stephanie Petit, Steven Chiodini (6)

Staff:  Adam Peake, Hillary Jett, Kim Carlson

Apologies:  Martin Boyle, Suzanne Radell,


Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT Meeting #25 - 2 June.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT Meeting #25 - 2 June.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4qwq7dutg5/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-02jun15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

1. Welcome, Roll Call & SOI 

2. CCWG Unincorporated Associations

3. Follow up on input received regarding membership 

4. Work Plan after Buenos Aires 

5. A.O.B 

Notes

CCWG ACCT - Call # 35 – 2 June 2015.

LINKS

Public Comment Announcement: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en

Draft Report: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/CCWG-Draft-Proposal-clean.docx?version=2&modificationDate=1430780681000&api=v2

AGENDA:

1. Welcome, Roll Call & SOI 

2. CCWG Unincorporated Associations

3. Follow up on input received regarding membership 

4. Work Plan after Buenos Aires 

5. A.O.B 

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS:

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

1. Welcome, Roll Call & SOI 

Sébastien Bachollet, call only

2. CCWG Unincorporated Associations

Sample article of association

An example of how an SO/AC might create articles when forming and unincorporated association. Just 3 or 4 sections in these articles 

Not as complex as some have thought. Advised by counsel that there is not much more than what you see on your screen. And note that this is only to constitute the legal vehicle, the powers are exercised by the SO/AC

Q. Why are we just focusing on one solution? And will we have other solutions presented in the same way. 

co-chair - don't feel we are pushing this unduly. It is proposed as the main proposal in our recommendations 

"member" is one possible solution. And designator was discussed, and that there were weaknesses with that proposal in 2 areas: on budget and strat/ops plan. 

Q. Some SO/AC may wish not to be a member. What role do they have in the future arrangements? Can they participate? And the role of an AC that does not appoint a director, do they have a role in the recall of the whole board. Also the issues around the bylaws changes. 

 A. Many of these issues have been answered. And in email since the last call.

Issues around the binding nature of the IRP. And misunderstanding over the IRP in making its decisions.

 Jorge's question in chat: there is a recurring theme I guess for different stakeholders, including governments: what does it mean from a liability point of view to be a member of such an unincorporated association? in detail? Asking Counsel to answer later in the call

 The situation of some SO/AC creating a UA and some would not, if public comment confirms this situation, then we will consider this scenario, and will work on new drafts and proposals, But for now we do not want to duplicate work of the public comment. 

 The desire for enforceability has moved us to consider the member structure, as this is the only way to provide such enforceability.

Most stress tests will fail if we do not have enforceable powers.

 Are we going to fast in thinking the membership is the only way for achieve the solutions we want. A time will come for a step back and consider if this is really what we want. Could the ICANN board go haywire and ignore its own bylaws is just to extreme a scenario. And there are entities, such as ccTLD, with relationships with ICANN that are legal entities and they could take ICANN to court. We may be over complicating this.

 There is a need to reconsider.

 Issue of are we looking a member of designator model. Issue of UA and how they fit with that. And the issue of enforceability. Regarding enforceability, there is one in place now, it is with NTIA. Need to consider if the transition can go forward without that enforceability. DNS too important for an arrangement based on goodwill 

 For both the member or designator models, they do need to be legal persons, and that is where the UA come in.

 These UA, as we see from the articles on screen, these are extensions of the SO/AC and are simple to form. 

 The proposal is about giving us enforceable powers. We are no trying to build a system that resorts to the courts. That rights are enforceable in law is what we have today, part of the status quo.

 It's not that UA are complicated to create. But it is how they fit with ICANN. ALAC does not see the need for the level of enforceability being suggested. Don't see the NTIA contract as ever having that role in enforceability. Might not be able to overrule the board, but we will be able to remove them. Removal of directors, some or all, are powerful accountability mechanisms. Not clear we need other mechanisms. 

 Without the ability to enforce the right to remove directors, then the power is weak. 

 An important discussion. Different views on the options. Public comment will help us understand which options have traction, and where there are problems. Clearly the UA path needs more work. But it is the option that our external advice says is the most promising. If we reject this option then need to answer why. 

Keep scenarios open and learn from the public comment.

 Need to respect everyone's opinions. If we seek legal advice, we will get legal solutions. Do we need the member structure to get the legal enforcement that we need? 

 Perhaps public comment will provide a mixed response on our solutions or even new options. We should listen to other solutions. Remember that we the community select the board. 

 Legal consel: Fundamental discussion: early there was clear consensus that the status quo needed improvement and that the ICANN board needed to be more accountable to the community. As external legal counsel we looked at the legal lens, if things go fundamentally wrong then you need enforceability. Tell us what you want to accomplish, and we will try to help you accomplish that, with pros and cons, from an enforceability perspective. And you can go back, and rely on trust. But while today you have a board selected by the community, there is a lack of trust in that board. And the question we hear from you is how to fix that? 

Selecting and removing directors is a simple accountability mechanism. But of you want to enforce that, there must be some legal personhood, an individual, a UA, a partnership, etc.

 What do you want to accomplish? If you agree on that, then we find solutions. Might need to rethink goals. Membership was a simple way to do what we heard you wanted to achieve.

 If this is problem now we come to implementation, then we need to re-think.

 If you want less enforceability, then there will be more options. What level or trust vs what level of enforceability? Is reliance on who is on the board and changing that what you need, or do you want more. This is the tipping point for designators and members. We can achieve the former through contract. 

 Court is an unusual occurrence. Very unusual to take as a last resort. 

 It's CCWG's choice if the backstop of court is needed, as a stick. Do you want the power to remove directors, or do you want more? Or is trust enough? (end legal counsel)

 Cannot imagine a scenarios where if we have in the bylaws to remove the directors. And pre-signed letters from the directors saying they will resign under certain criteria. Cannot imaging them not resigning when the criteria are met and community demands. 

Becky, slide presentation. 

 Dispute resolution - some high level findings. What are we talking about when we talk about litigation. The rights that members of a public benefit limited corporation have. To enforce fiduciary obligations. But not taken to court for a whole range of issues. These are limited. 

 Can we force the first step of going to dispute resolution, yes, the courts can provide this. 

If it is the communities wish then we can turn to our international arbitration rather than to a California court.

 One member cannot bring and IRP. Cannot bring challenges unless you are involved in the process that led up to the disagreement. And a bond.

 Will a CA court follow an IRP or try to second guess. Courts have been very differential to IRP decisions.

 Yes, we can avoid having CA courts solve disputes so long as we give people real rights in other processes. 

Need to descried what we want to achieve. And the stress test the scenarios. 

A courts will not do crazy things and enforce their will on the ICANN community 

To the extent that the bylaws provide for a review for people materially harmed by ICANN action/inaction. Those affected parties have the rights under the bylaws to seek and IRP. If the question is how do we prevent an endless cycle of IRPs, this is really a separate question. Need a balance between access and preventing abuse. 

When we hear about endless litigation, what they assume is the board might be lawless and refuse to abide by its obligations. But this an unlikely scenario, and rules and powers will reduce the likelihood of dispute. 

Legal counsel. This is not new research. Happy to provide if requested.

4. Work Plan after Buenos Aires 

It will he a new time for our work in the next few days. Public comment ends tomorrow. And will see the populated public comment tool by the weekend and WP will begin work.

In BA need frank discussion with the community. About agreement, disagreement and areas on misunderstanding. Our goal is to submit to the SO/AC in Dublin, they need 15 days prior to review. We need a 40 day public comment. We need to review as a whole group the outcome of public comment and from BA. And that is why we are considering a meeting in July. 

The chairs suggest a F2F meeting rather than remote intense work days. But that not off the table. Hence the doodle pool. With 2 favorable dates emerging

But we do need to make arrangements quickly. And consider conflicts with other meetings such as IGF USA and IETF. 

F2F or intense online work days: F2F felt to be more productive. 

Eberhard. 3 questions add to the public comment period. Why? 

Because of a drafting omission. The questions are in the proposal, but not other places. The public comment page has been updated. We will ask those who have submitted to comment already if they need to review. 

END

Action Items

Documents Presented

Dispute Resolution.pdf

Sample Arts of Assn.pdf

----------------------------------------

CCWG ACCT Meeting with Advisors and Chairs (29 May)

Attendees: 

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Becky Burr, Julia Wolman, Mathiew Weill, Par Brumark, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert (9)

Participants: Avri Doria, Bob Takacs, David McAuley, Greg Shatan, James Gannon, Jim Baskin, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Kevin Espinola, Phil Buckingham, Vrikson Acosta (11)

Advisors:  Jan Aart Scholte, Nell Minow, Roberto Bissio, William Currie

Staff:  Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Hilary Jett, Kim Carlson, Jim Trengrove, 

Apologies:  Cheryl Langdon Orr

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT Chairs and Advisors - 29 May.pdf

Transcript CCWG ACCT Chairs and Advisors - 29 May.doc

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5uly95id9i/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-29may15-en.mp3

Notes

We will reiterate main changes that are considered interim proposals of the CCWG-ACCT. We will then open the floor for comments.

Our proposal is based on an empowered community. We suggest incorporating principles that are in the AoC into Bylaws.  

Fundamental Bylaws would require prior approval from community before being changed. 

Our proposal reinforces the independent appeals mechanisms: IRP --> panel of 7 members, binding decisions on ICANN, enhanced accessibility/standing, decision will review merits of case. 

Instead of creating new layer of accountability above ICANN, we are spreading powers to have balanced powers between legislative, executive and judiciary. 

Reference model provides creation of a group of 29 representatives from different groups of ICANN (SO/ACs) and provides enforceability of its decision should the Board refuse a decision. The current reference proposal would be for SO/AC to each create an unincorporated association that would become a member of ICANN. This would not be an open membership. We are adding a touch of legal to the current SO/ACs in order to provide the right balance in terms of legal powers that would create enforceability of model. 

The proposal has a balance of influence in the empowered community that includes all SO/ACs various options. All of them provide for representation of governements. We are aware this may create concerns for governements to participate in this voting mechanism. 

Feedback 

- Are you expecting a collective position from advisors or do we have the right to comment individually?

--> We welcome and encourage individual submissions through the official channel. If there is a common view, that can be emphasized as well. Both options are open.

- Jan has submitted comments. This is to highlight comment #2  how do you maximize correlation between the ICANN community and the evolving wider stakeholder community. The draft is arguing for participation to reflect diversity but there is nothing concrete being suggested. Functional diversity is being perceived but it is not clear how gender and geographical diversity is being represented. Also, how will SO/ACs be held into account? Work Stream 2 are going to be kept alive after transition: have you talked about this more explicitely i.e. CCWG to be maintained post transition? 

> Your comments were not discussed with group before we published the draft report. Point raised on diversity is going to be an item for discussion after the public comment period. In terms of process, we have two work streams - we are focused on stream 1 and have started highlighting stream 2 issues. Our group might extend post transition - we are not expecting everything to be closed by transition. 

- What of accountability of how groups are selected? We can find ourselves in regression. It is important that we be more specific: groups need to demonstrate that their own mechanisms for governance and membership are sufficient. We need to be more specific with regards to transparency: what does organization need to do to make sure Bylaws changes are widely disseminated for instance? Inherent principle that this entity exists for public interest should be a principle that cannot be changed.

ACTION ITEM: Recap after the Advisors call to make sure these comments are being reflected in our comment period.

- Has the working group discussed whether to include a commitment towards freedom of expression? One of accountability issues in the question of who is accountable to is to do with with accountability, democratic standards. Has this been discussed for inclusion in the revised bylaws? Some people are arguing for UA but there is also an argument that Chairs SO/ACs could assume that membership.

--> We are ensuring ICANN is not used as a mean to restrict freedom of expression. UAs is an ongoing discussion. 

> We have aspects in our draft that should raise quality of accountability: e.g. how many votes should be. 1 vote per world region. Some of parameters we have put in report were based on inclusiveness. Another example: cost of IRP. What level of details would you recommend we put into the set of recommendations for work stream 1? Our issue is two-fold: 1) we need to focus on narrow task of dealing with work stream 1; 2) our charter is not broad enough for us to make recommendations on the decision-making, membership processes. Could you clarify what aspects you deem essential? 

- Who has competence to make recommendations on proces if not the CCWG?

--> We can hardly prescribe how SO/ACs should constitute themselves other than giving principles that they should be inclusive, diverse etc. 

- Roberto agrees with Jan - at essence of points: is accountability internal or related to external body? It needs to be clearly identified. Whenever you have external accountability (self defined international), what are the values from which you have mandate? You derive out of that freedom of expression. 

--> Take internal accountability issue into account. That might be an opportunity.

- An explicit acknowledgment in report and a commitment to deal with it in work stream 2 would be welcome. INGO accountability charter addresses issue in detail for instance. 

--> This is something we need to discuss as a group. We need to make sure we are talking about same problem statement with regards to external/internal.

ACTION ITEM Identify what is potential issue we would like to address when we use concept of external/internal accountability.

---> We have recently had some discussion about enforceability. It is my understanding we are tasked with improving architecture which includes robust mechanisms. Do you have any guidance on this? 

- DoC may be handing over stewardship but legal, judiciary accountability still remains, not-for-profit legislation. There is still judiciary accountability for ICANN. 

ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to interact with Advisors to ensure comments are being submitted in public comment period.

ACTION ITEM - Extract notes/transcript from this call and push it to the public comment forum.

The comment period will end on June 3. F2F meeting on June 19. We will discuss with community on date that will follow. The second comment period will be organized. We may turn to you when drafting second round of proposals especially if confronted with diverging views. 

ACTION ITEM: Staff to send advisors existing SO/AC structures and articles to provide them with an overview of accountability mechanisms. 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Recap after the Advisors call to make sure these comments are being reflected in our comment period

ACTION ITEM Identify what is potential issue we would like to address when we use concept of external/internal accountability.

ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to interact with Advisors to ensure comments are being submitted in public comment period.

ACTION ITEM - Extract notes/transcript from this call and push it to the public comment forum.

ACTION ITEM: Staff to send advisors existing SO/AC structures and articles to provide them with an overview of accountability mechanisms.

-----------------------------------

CCWG ACCT Meeting # 34 (26 May)

Attendees: 

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon Orr, Eberhard Lisse, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve Delbianco, Thomas Rickert (17)

Participants:  Kavouss Arasteh, Avri Doria, Bob Takacs, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Finn Petersen, Gary Campbell, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Keith Drazek, Kevin Espinola, Maciej Tomaszewski, Mark Carvel, Paul Szynder, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Rudi Daniel, Sabine Meyer, Thomas Schneider, Tomohiro Fujisaki, Vrikson Acosta, Yasuichi Kitamura (23)

Legal Counsel: Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mitermaier, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Miles Fuller, Tyler Hilton, Rosemary Fei (8)

Staff:  Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Kim Carlson

Apologies:  


Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT - Call #34_26 May.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT - Call #34_26 May.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p30issltzhv/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-26may15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

CCWG-Accountability Meeting #35 – Tuesday 26 May 2015 from 12:00 – 14:00 UTC

 1. Welcome, Roll Call & SoI

 2. Feedback received on CCWG proposal

 3. Next steps on discussions regarding UAs and other membership models (follow-up on recent mailing list activity)

 4. Legal group and engagement with lawyers

 5. Work plan post BA - 2nd public comment

 6. AoB (introduction of video if available)

Notes

1. Welcome, Roll Call & SoI 

2. Feedback received on CCWG proposal

It would be useful to receive a short update on discussions in our respective communities. As a reminder we have currently received 4 comments. The CWG-stewardship is managing 50 comments. It would be valuable to share what comments are currently being drafted. 

- Mathieu was invited to a ccNSO Council call where the CWG and CCWG proposals were discussed. We should expect that the Council will ask us to highlight which of our proposals affect ccTLDs and in which manner. There might be an official correspondence. 

- BC will be sending in comments: enforcing powers may require that SO/ACs adopt member status under California law and will encourage the CCWG to provide further explanation on this model. Suggestion to start answering these questions. It was found that slides prepared by Xplane were a very helpful way to digest report content. 

- Community is seeking clarification about members and UA structure

- RySG will be submitting comments that are largely supportive. 

- IPC is drafting comments that are largely supportive. Jonathan will coordinate with Becky on comments.

- Stress Tests Work Party will determine how assessments will change if lack enforceability. 

- As we make decision about type of UAs and variation, stress tests should also look at accountability issues in particular 

--> Specific solutions for specific stress tests. 

3 Next Steps on Discussions regarding UAs and other membership models 

There have been very thorough and fruitful discussions regarding membership model and UAs. Many concerns and questions remain to be answered: accountability of members etc being one.

Should we adopt membership model or appoint Chairs to be Members of ICANN?

UAs provide legal vehicle for community to hold ICANN accountable. We need legal vehicle to achieve goals. 

UAs is not the only legal vehicle that can provide us with their empowerment. There have been discussions about how corporation in Switzerland could achieve this for instance. UAs has been the easiest model. 

SO/AC Chairs can be appointed as member but this triggers new questions.

Hybrid model could be adopted and would function: SO/ACs could choose to form UAs while others may choose to appoint their Chair. 

Bylaws would recognize each member or the figure of the Chair. Bylaws would be recognizing the position of the Chair. 

Chair would act on behalf of SO/AC. UAs would be governed by rules stated by each SO/AC.

To avoid: 1) Chair used as synonym of individual; 2) Equate legal personhood of individual to the one grand to Chair 

Key questions: 1) whether it is possible for Bylaws to recognize only function or figure instead of natural person, whether Bylaws would provide powers to position rather than person; 2) whether the risks could increase through membership model. 

Feedback

- If you have not uniformed arrangement between SO/ACs - when come to voting, there will be different criteria, this won't be normal. We address one accountability question but transfer another accountability question. Clarity is needed on overall picture. 

--> This needs to further discussed but we need to come to a conclusion on how to address this issue. Answer could be that each SO/AC would apply methods. 

- We need to be careful that it not necessarily be Chair of SO/AC but rather the Chair SO/AC designates. We may want to distribute the position (one per region etc). We do not want to make it sound like SO/AC Chair. There may well be situations where we want to put someone in position but this person cannot. We might want to consider replacements. ALAC has certain rules when it comes to accountability criteria. We have processes that can be written in Bylaws, Charters etc to ensure criteria are being met. Can we tie responsability to a rank? 

- It can be another person that could be designated. We must avoid complicating this. Most SO/ACs have formal processes. In favor with proceeding with this route. 

- UAs is really consistent with trying to make SO/ACs into members. Looking at Chairs concept, agree that acting as a conduit for the will of SO/AC. It is symbolically appropriate. 

- 1) We need to have the representatives of SO/ACs in the community body accountable to their own SO/ACs we need enforceable tools against these representatives 2) we need to have enforceable tools against ICANN decision that would not respect community body decision 3) we keep things as simple as possible. Do the options we are considering have these requirements? Are SO/ACs already UAs? Legal counsel to clarify. 

- Holly said we might already be UAs. There is no difference but difference in how it can be explained to others and how will it be perceived adds a level of complexity. Existence of UA and its descriptions makes it even more complex. 

--> Agrees with three requirements - there are a number of options: 1) UAs as members ; 2) Human beings designated by UAs as members.  You need some entity to have enforceable right. There needs to be a level of intent, basis/minimal rules to help indicate who is involved in organization. There may be benefits in being registered as UA. Discussion around UAs have added a degree of complexity. 

--> We are fine-tuning to make things as easy as possible. The member model is best way for community to get powers. Whether the SO/AC is member or a delegate appointed by SO/AC, you need some power to ensure that that person is respectful of desires of community group he/she represents. Traditionnally the way to get there is to have group be legal person itself. The additional benefit you would have by registering UAs as an entity, you get liability protection that comes with it. As many rules you have, you have formed intent to create UA, we are advocating final step of registering for legal benefit. 

- ICANN will require certain legal balance: enforceability that considers reality. 

- Are we on same page with respect to enforceability? If the group considers robust enforceability as a requirement, then we are taking about membership model. Question is how do we implement membership model. Using UAs would be a very good implementation model. Concerns about complexity this might add. If we have set of requirements that are implemented including UAs, would you still go for other option even if we had to sacrifice goals? We need to communicate the whole accountability architecure in professional matters. 

- The reference that some SO/ACs may already be UAs, we do not want SO/ACs to be UAs but to have a shadow. Perceived complexity of how people will understand ICANN. There has been a discussion on potential problems of if we had ability to go to Court we end up with possibility. When writing these rules can we waive the right to go to court?

- It might be useful to have a comparitive table betweem UA and non UA membership - pros and cons - degrees of implementation and complexity.

- Concerned about discussion - if we want to end up being organization where we are able to go to Court, it is not an organization I would like to join. Best way would be international organization. 

- Conversation is missplaced - enforceability issue is about having authority that we are putting in Bylaws. It is not about going to Court. 

- Governance arrangements's basis principle is to prevent going to Court. The fact that you can go to Court is a credible threat so that no one goes to Court. We need to acknowledge feedback on complexity. Suggestion would be for the CCWG to create UA - we submit to group draft articles of association based on legal counsel's legal input. Anyone on this list can comment and add concern on UA. We can report to community first hand.

- If you create a legal person, perception that might lose multistakeholder model soul, it does not have any reality attached to it. 

- It is not the legal process, it is the perception that it will cause among others that is problematic. Is it possible to waive litigation?

- Having ability to go to Court and ability to remove Board directors are the two powers/authorities that make it so unnecessary 

- Powers that are put in place are far more complex that anything having to do with UAs. Struggling to understand why UAs are causing so much concern when it is the least complex part of this entire process. You can certainly waive rights to Courts but why create such a complex set if not going to use them? 

- Setting up a UA documenting how we do it and explaining steps that need to be taken might help explain concept to community together with far more complex escalation path we have already been working on. Suggestion: Cochairs to talk to Comms Team to see if can facilitate comms to community.

ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to reach out to Comms Team to analyse feasibility. 

- Overall structure may be complex and may benefit from further explanation. We need to see how we can boil complexity. 

- Does this structure increase opportunity for individual members to litigate on their own without community consensus? 

- Threshold could probably be set (member approval before litigation).

ACTION ITEM: Legal counsel to do some research on litigation threshold. 

- How do we have people understand the overall process? A lot of this is about explanability. Issue of individual members taking action.

ACTION ITEM: CCWG to go through memorandums put together by counsel on UAs - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52890082/REVISED%20Memo%20on%20Unincorporated%20Associations%20May%203%2C%202015-207411876-v4.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430694085000&api=v2 

We will reach out to comms Team to see how we can explain this. 

- Complexity for UA membership implementation needs to be added. 

--> We need to define scenarios first and will be able to provide clear table. 

ACTION ITEM - Provide clear comparative documentation on models. 

Legal Group & Engagement with Lawyers

We had discussion on last call where concept of rearranging legal subteam was suggested. We have reached out to ICANN to provide us with information on legal costs incurred so far. We have hit 1 million dollars for CCWG. We will be asking for timesheets and more detail on time being sent on what subject. 

Variety of expertise, getting lawyers up-to-speed and research on legal requirements/implementation added to legal costs. 

1,7 million for both CCWG and CWG 

We will be exercising more control on costs. 

Work Plan Post BA - Second Public Comment Period

Public comment will end on 3 June. Staff will populate comment review tool by June 7. Our regular call on June 9 is going to be extended by an hour to ensure everyone is comfortable the PCRT was populated in appropriate manner. That will kick WP work on analysing comments. June 16 will be freeze date for WPs' output. We will be assessing which parts raise concerns, divergences, agreements etc.

BA schedule:

  • Board discussion on Sunday
  • Working session on Wednesday and Thursday
  • We are working on engaging each SO/AC to hold dedicated sessions.

We will then move into phase where our goal will be to launch a 40-day comment period. We will attempt to finalize proposal in time for Dublin meeting which means we will need to finalize proposal by October 9. We have the month of July to finalize document for comment. Do we plan for a F2F or intensive session? Do we move fast and finalize this before or after July 20? Is it currently foreseen that there would be a need to have specific work groups or support for that period? There is some support among Chairs and Rapporteurs for a F2F in July. 

Feedback:

- What happened to consensus work plan?'

> We are planning to try and close as many items as early as possible if we get consensus on IRP or reconsideration process e.g.. This is planning for outstanding issues in July. It is not replacing the approach described by Thomas.  

- July 16 difficult. 

ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to follow up on F2F/intensive session on list. 

Objective is to select dates and determine format asap. 

6. A.O.B

Video is not available. As part of engagement activity, we are planning to do videos to help community understand what we are working on. Pilot is currently being finalized by comms Team. We will review and will share with group. 

Lawyers have not received stream of emails on UAs. 

ACTION ITEM - staff to investigate whether lawyers have access to mailing list. 

Lawyers would welcome guidance on what is needed for Buenos Aires. 

ACTION ITEM – Thomas to check whether GAC wants a briefing session

ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to provide lawyers on clear Buenos Aires expectations

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - CoChairs to reach out to Comms Team to analyse feasibility

ACTION ITEM: CCWG to go through memorandums put together by counsel on UAs - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52890082/REVISED%20Memo%20on%20Unincorporated%20Associations%20May%203%2C%202015-207411876-v4.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430694085000&api=v2 

ACTION ITEM - Provide clear comparative documentation on models

ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to follow up on F2F/intensive session on list. 

ACTION ITEM - staff to investigate whether lawyers have access to mailing list. 

ACTION ITEM – Thomas to check whether GAC wants a briefing session

ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to provide lawyers on clear Buenos Aires expectations

Documents Presented:  Slides_hybrid_membership LATEST.pptx

---------------------------------------------

CCWG ACCT Meeting # 33 (19 May)

Attendees: 

Members:  Alice Munyua, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon Orr, Jordan Carter, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa (15)

Participants: Amrita Choudhury, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Bob Takacs, Chris Disspain, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan,Kavouss Arasteh, Manal Ismail, Paul Szyndler, Sabine Meyer, Wisdom Maduka (13)

Legal Councel:  Emily Chan, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Miles Fuller, Rosemary Fei, Sharon Flanagan, Tyler Hilton, Stephanie Petit 

Staff: Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Kimberly Carlson, Laena Rahim, Marika Konings (5)

Apologies:  Alan Greenberg, Eberhard Lisse, Olga Cavalli, Izumi Okutani (4)

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT Meeting 33 - 19 May.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT Meeting 33 - 19 May.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7em69we0fz/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-19may15-en.mp3

Notes

CCWG ACCT - Call # 33 - 19 May 2015

LINKS

Public Comment Announcement: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en

Draft Report https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/CCWG-Draft-Proposal-clean.docx?version=2&modificationDate=1430780681000&api=v2

AGENDA:

1. Welcome, Roll Call & SoI

2. Summary of feedback

•             Potential additional Webinars

•             Board

•             Other sessions report?

3.  CWG submission

4.  Planning for analysis of public comments

•             Detailed planning & organization

•             Work before BA

5.  CCWG organization towards BA and beyond

•             Legal sub team - legal work

•             Level of detail expected

•             Plan beyond BA (preparing 2nd PC)

•             WP structure

 

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS:

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

 

1. Welcome, Roll Call & Soi

2. Summary of feedback

Comments from the community.  2 webinars on 11 May and session with the board on 15 May. 

Compiling answers to the questions.  FAQ will be published in the next day or so.

Questions during the webinars noted concerns about the creation and use of unincorporated associations and their internal governance.  Questions about US, about board recall, about the IRP and its binding nature.  Questions about reconsideration and the ombudsman.  And questions about the stress tests and timeline.

Some areas where the community has more questions. Overall, felt the number of questions was quite low.  Questions for clarification rather than about alternatives.  Suggests the webinars were for the community to better understand the proposal, with questions to come later.

Noting a question raised during the board call about the removal of individual directors. And whether this should be WS1 or WS2.  The question was also about the criteria for removal, which was not defined in the proposal.

Rights to remove a director for cause rather than without cause.  Our focus has been to remove without cause.  Under statute of CA law, the appointing entity can remove the director without cause.  A for cause removal is usually reserved to the Board.   Typically for a breach of fiduciary duties. 

Should explicitly mention this for cause and without cause in the proposal.

Also noted that when a Director joins the board they serve the community not the interests of the appointing community. So removal by that community is not appropriate, the entire community should remove.

Action: WP1 to review the relevant section of the proposal

Example:  ALAC appointed director has a fiduciary duty to ICANN, but the statutory right of the appointing organization is that they can remove their director. A member can remove their director at any time.

That the community can impose their will on the process only in the for cause case.

Note that the document is not agreed by everyone. 

The intent of what was intended internally needs to be made clear externally and WP1 will review.

* potential additional Webinars

Views on whether more are needed?

Suggest not: that the first were well attended. 

FAQ will be available, more questions and responses will be added as received.  Working on more video to explain various parts of the proposal.

3. CWG submission

Draft a co-chairs submission to the CWG public comment period, which ends 20 May. 

Addressing the dependencies we have identified and explaining how we  in CCWG are proposing to address their concerns.

Budget and transparency.  Review process for the IANA budget.  See no obstacle to coordinating proposals of the two groups. 

CSC reference.  Noting that it needs to be created under the bylaws, but it is responded to in section 1.4, p 12.  About the IANA function review.  The separation review and process, this is not reflected in the CCWG proposal.  That process is being worked on in the CWG.  Might acknowledge that this is in process and will advise appropriately.

Suggestion to introduce a general paragraph, that any review regarding naming would be a subset of the accountability proposal. 

Action: to take the input into account and submit comments to the public comment forum.

4. Planning for analysis of public comments

Public comment tool populated with comments on a section by section basis by June 7.  Working party to review by June 16: where there is consenus, where are diverging views, and where are the concerns. And then how we move forward.  For logistics the WP leaders will plan ahead. With the suggestion of an intense work weekend June 13/14

Action:    WP leaders to plan their meetings.

Action:   Staff to populate the public comment tool as comments are received.  

Suggestion:  the full group should have at least one pass of the comments.  And plan a call on 6 or 7 June to have a pass-through of all comments for the whole groups.

5. CCWG organization towards BA and beyond

 * Legal sub team - legal work

Legal sub team will be reorganized.  Had 3 tasks: identify legal firms, provide a scooping document for interaction with legal advisors, and to gather questions and assign to lawyers to receive answers on these questions for the group.

Seeking a more agile way to work with the lawyers.  Asking the lawyers to interact more directly with the WP.  Task for the legal sub-team to continue to gather questions and assign to the lawyers.  Less need for the sub-team weekly calls.  Thanks to the sub-team for the work done supporting preparation the proposal and all the work done.

Question. UA.  is it possible for one single SO. If we go to a natural person, a char and vice chair, without the participation of any other SO/AC does it have any powers.  Or, if a legal entity, does that also have the power if no other membership.  What is the minimum number of members to make it valid? What is the advantage and disadvantage of natural person and legal entity.  

Suggest to defer answers to the lawyers. And will assign to the lawyers.

* Plan beyond BA (preparing 2nd PC)

We have had 2 reading on important questions, but we have not done any consensus calling.  After BA and full community input, we will need to decide how to transform our proposals into consensus recommendations.  Recommendations we hope will be agreed by the chartering organizations.  And we agreed to work from higher level principles to detail.

Various tasks ahead. Suggest that we try to take stock for the separate bits of our work and to confirm consensus as we work forward.  And try to reach consensus in the higher level principles first, and move to detail .

Moving from the suggestions of our current proposal, to recommendations.

Need consistency to ensure that implementation is done in the sprit of the CCWG recommendations

The community agrees with the proposal. Asked the community to comment on alternative proposals.  They may community disagrees.  All three areas will trigger different ways forward. 

Where the community agrees, we make as consensus recommendations

Where there are alternatives, or the community came up with a new proposal, then we work to resolve these.

Where the community substantially disagrees with our suggestions.  Need to review from the beginning. 

Post BA, take all the recommendations in our report to consensus.  And then to refine them, so they are ready for implementation oversight.

Agree with the need for a session to digest what's heard in BA.

Keeping the WP organizations, with perhaps smaller teams to work on specific issues.  What's provided should be sufficient to allow implementation.

 

What are the objectives, the frameworks, the timing?

Proposal was prepared with the help do WP leaders. And it is to facilitate, not make things more complex.  The proposal is about our internal work. 

Examples: Community power to veto/reject a strategic plan/budget.  Group might feel there is enough detail for implementation. If we feel the community agrees with the proposal.  The we ask the CCWG if they agree it is consensus.  If yes, then it is parked until we have more time to complete the proposal thru bylaw implementation or whatever required. 

 e.g. For NomCom appointees we gave options, and asked the community for feed back on alternatives.  We will analyze responses, and if it is on one option then we bring it to our group and seek consensus.  We favored members and designators, but if someone came up with a wholly new proposal that had support of the community then we would need to review from the beginning.

 One outcome of the PC will be questions. And our answer may take us in a new direction, to something we'd not worked out before.  And that on slide 5, we may be answering questions.

 6 AoB

 Congressional hearings.

 two hearings last week.  Both committee last held hearings in April 2014.  Progress since then.  Constructive hearings, 1st about IPR and consumer issues.  Commerce committee, jurisdiction over DoC and NTIA. GAO asked by the committee to analyze the risks of the transition.  One proposal was for the GAO to look at the CCWG and CWG work over the next year.  Encourage them instead to comment in the next month or so. Congress let its views be known now.  Steve's suggestion that congress require NTIA to ensure that all the community recommendations are implemented.  

Written testimony is available.  Transcripts will be a few weeks.

Request for answers to some question put to the lawyers

Will legal counsel be available for the GAC with the CCWG.

 Offer made to GAC for a Q&A session with the CCWG

 Closing comments.

Need to keep listening and engaging, please report on your engagement efforts on the list. It must be a dialogue. Goal should be that there is no surprise in the comments we receive, and as few misinformed inputs as possible. 

Preparing the next steps in this call. This is an investment that will be pay back 10x, please contribute to these discussions.

END

Action Items

Action: WP1 to review the relevant section of the proposal 

Action: to take the input into account and submit comments to the public comment forum.

Action:    WP leaders to plan their meetings.

Action:   Staff to populate the public comment tool as comments are received.  

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CCWG ACCT Meeting # 32 (05 May)

Attendees: 

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bacholette, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (19)

Participants:  Adrian Carballo, Alain Bidron, Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Jim Baskin, Jonathan Zuck, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Malcolm Hutty, Mark Carvell, Martin Boyle, Olivier Muron, Pedro Ivo Silva, Peter Van Roste, Sabine Meyer, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Tomohiro Fujisaki, Wisdom Donkor   (21)

Legal Counsel:  Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Rosemary Fei, Steven Chiodini, Tyler Hilton

Staff:  Adam Peake, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Grace Abuhamad, Hillary Jett, Jim Trengrove, Laena Rahim, Marika Konings, 

Apologies:  Eberhard Lisse

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT #32 5 May.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT #32 5 May.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7r0su1rxr4/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-05may15-en.mp3

Agenda

1. Welcome & Roll Call & SoI

2. Update on report publication

         - looking back at latest discussions, how we   addressed the "private sector" discussion

         - any input we chose not to take onboard 3. Engagement plan :

         - Webinar dates

         - Icann staff to update on Icann's plans : see Hillary email from 29 April

         - Encourage members and participants to give presentations,

         - initiate a FAQ

4. Areas of further investigation for the group :

         - what are the topics we need to keep working on during public comment ?

         - some legal questions still outstanding

         - Community mechanism + UAs need more fleshing out

5. Conclusion

Notes

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

Links

WP1 Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq

WP2 Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/p9yemfx

ST-WP Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e

Legal Subt Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4 

Public Comment Announcement:  https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en

Webinar Announcement:  https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-05-04-en

 

1. Welcome & Roll Call & SoI

apologies, Eberhard Lisse

2. Update on report publication

Congratulations on the publication of the report.  Published for public comment yesterday, May 4.

Update:  the report structure was reviewed, splitting a large section to make the document more readable.  Note the change in page numbers.

Monitored use of the words "private sector" in ICANN documents (bylaws, articles etc) and discussion within the group.  Introduced a note to say discussion was ongoing.  Asking for community for feedback on the topic.

The initial announcement of the public comment does not include the XPLANE graphic, last minute edit. These will be included today.

Comment: para 65, for example.  Not mention "private sector" in the report rather reference the bylaws

Action: staff to make a proposal for the analysis for public comment planning. Need for the working parties to analyze comments relevant to their respective sections

Legal call on Friday 1 May UTC 20:00 to discussion of unincorporated associations, a meeting organized at short notice to discuss member models and unincorporated associations tom provide clarification for the report.

The meeting resulted in the new memo on unincorporated associations (see legal sub-team documents on the wiki)  Notes and chat of the meeting sent to the legal sub team list.

3. engagement plan (Hillary Jett ICANN staff)

Public comment promotion and outreach.  Utilize social media presence.

Distribution of information to regional stakeholders teams, twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn. The home page banner is updated.  Ensure the community is informed.  Will be added to all the ICANN newsletters.  The regional engagement teams have all been informed.

Ask that all participants push the information out to the various list.

If you plan webinars and meetings, then the chairs have offered to support meetings, and Hillary will help coordinate.

Co-chairs and Rapporteurs will make themselves available for community outreach efforts, for SO/AC, constituencies or outside ICANN.  Sharing comments back with the group would be very helpful.

Action: All CCWG members, after any information sessions or other discussions please report on any feedback, help prepare for review of public comment and to create an FAQ.

Contact for speakers bureau Hillary Jett <hillary.jett@icann.org

information from the numbers community:  regular updates from the CCWG members to their community.  Share on lists and lead discussions, with information relevant to the numbers community.  Will be discussed at the RIPE meeting next week.  Will report back to the CCWG twitter hashtag? 

Hilary's april 29 email.  Email about the communications support available and some of the background information about support that was made available for CWG.  Now forwarded to the CCWG list.

Action:  staff will discuss possible ways to have the key parts of the report translated as quickly as possible: i.e. Exec summary and XPLANE to be translated as a priority . Main sections of the document ahead of the appendix

Action: Staff to respond on interpretation of webinars.

Further legal advice received:  Sam Eisner's and Pedro da Silva's questions answered.

CCWG engagement with the CWG public comment, how to respond?

Suggest CCWG response to the CWG public comment to highlight the parts of our report that responds to issues raised in the CWG proposal.  Avri producing comment on this matter already.

Action:  CCWG will submit comments on the CWG public comment.  Will inform the CWG co-chairs of this contribution. (staff and CCWG co-chairs)

Process after the close of public comment, any other face to face meetings?  Other than the 19 June meeting, no.  But need to plan how to prepare between June 3 (close of PC) and June19.  So we have responses ready for ICANN#53

Action: Staff to confirm the outline of the work process after June 3 in detailed fashion.

Action: Staff to populate the public comment review tool as comments are submitted.

Proposal to cancel the meeting of 12 May.  And legal sub-team calls for this week and next week.  Comments?

Action: Republish the updated calendar of CCWG meetings and webinars

Please use the time to reach-out to communities, and provide feedback.

Meeting closed

Action Items

Action: staff to make a proposal for the analysis for public comment planing. 

Action: All CCWG members: after any information sessions or other discussions please report on any feedback, help prepare for review of public comment and to create an FAQ.

Action:  staff will discuss possible ways to have the key parts of the report translated as quickly as possible: i.e. Exec summary and XPLANE to be translated as a priority . Main sections of the document ahead of the appendix

Action: Staff to respond on interpretation of webinars.

Action: CCWG will submit comments on the CWG public comment.  Will inform the CWG co-chairs of this contribution. (staff and CCWG co-chairs)

Action: Staff to confirm the outline of the work process after June 3 in detailed fashion.

Action: Staff to populate the public comment review tool as comments are submitted.

Action: Staff to republish the updated calendar of CCWG meetings and webinars


----------------------

CCWG ACCT Meeting # 31 (30 April)

Attendees: 

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Landon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (19)

Participants:  Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Chris Disspain, David McAuley, Farzaneh Badii, Greg Shatan, Jorge Cancio, Paul Szyndler, Sabine Meyer, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy   (10)

Legal Counsel:  Edward McNicholas, Ingrid Mittermaier, Josh Hofheimer, Miles Fuller, Rosemary Fei, Sharon Flanagan, Tyler Hilton

Staff: Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Jim Trengrove, Laena Rahim, Theresa Swinehart,

Apologies:  

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p12ovvcki0n/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-30apr15-en.mp3

Action Items and Notes

ACTION ITEMS (see details in notes)
 
ACTION ITEM: Read executive summary 
AGREEMENT/ACTION ITEM: Add SO/AC membership model to Reference mechanism when we refer to the model in the document (executive summary). Clarify "reference mechanism" in glossary/definitions section. Ensure it does not prejudice final outcome of CCWG deliberation

ACTION ITEM - Remove sentence on p. 6 paragaph 16 and specificy IANA functions on p. 11

ACTION ITEM - Check CWG parts to make sure we do not make changes to CWG work 

ACTION ITEM - Specification 1 to be removed (WP2) 
 
ACTION ITEM – Capitalize mission
ACTION ITEM - Add clarifying sentence drawing specific attention to Sebastien's comment so that community can react as needed. 

ACTION ITEM - Becky to look at paragraph 95 and 99 requests for changes
 
ACTION ITEM - # paragraphs
 
ACTION ITEM - Remove "private sector" reference
 
ACTION ITEM: Greg to point to specific section and suggest language. 
ACTION ITEM - Remove"tabled" in paragraph 178 p 40

ACTION ITEM -  Add clearer specifications (beyond legal firm memo) in appendix on SO/AC membership 

ACTION ITEM - Remove "2 alternatives"

ACTION ITEM - Jordan and Sebastien to discuss 2.6.4 edit offline.

ACTION ITEM - Paragraph 262 edit to be made.

ACTION ITEM - Align with CWG specifications

ACTION ITEM - Review paragraph 349

ACTION ITEM - Refine timeline language on second comment period

ACTION ITEM - Delete 695 
 
ACTION ITEM - Clarify on timeline and in report that 19 June meeting is confirmed. 
 
ACTION ITEM -Insert paragraph into public comment period announcement to explain why we are not using standard 40-day comment period and clarify that it is an exception.
 
ACTION ITEM - Provide feedback on Xplane slides by Saturday, 2 May - 23:59 UTC
 
ACTION ITEM - CoChairs/staff to circulate new iteration of report that captures legal counsel feedback (18:00 UTC) and edits received on Thursday, 30 April by 23:59 UTC. The deadline to send input on the version to be circulated today is 1 May - 23:59 UTC. 
 
ACTION ITEM – Share engagement plan early next week
 
ACTION ITEM - Staff and Cochairs to start planning for before/after presentation
---
 
NOTES 
These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.
1. Welcome, SoI, Roll Call

Reminder: please complete your SoI on the wiki and contact staff if you need any assistance.

2. Review of Changes 

Sections 0 & 1

We have tried to incorporate all the changes that were made on Tuesday but please check your comments have been adequately reflected. We also ask that you speak to relevant section(s) of report for everyone to follow. 

The executive summary outlines the essence of what we have been working on. It sets the scene for the community. 

ACTION ITEM: Read executive summary 

1-5 were moved to appendices - a summary was plugged into the report to provide the reader with context (section 1) 

Feedback:

- We refer to the preferred community empowerment mechanism as reference mechanism. Instead of saying reference, clarify that it's the "membership model". 

- What does reference mechanism mean? There is no definition. 

--> We haven't moved any option - hence the wording "reference" 

- Membership model as an alternative might lead to confusion to some who might not read our report carefully about who the members would be. This would raise question of whether ICANN should have members or not. We could call it "SO AC Membership Model" 

- We should introduce both "AC/SO Membership Model" / "AC/SO Designator Model"

--> Usual order is SO/AC
- If we change wording, keep in mind that it is a reference, not a preference.

- Recommendation to delete sentence on page 6 paragraph 16.

--> Only SO/ACs would have member

- paragraph 11 – clarify IANA functions

- Should we cross check IANA functions and separability? 

--> It is not specifically an AoC review

AGREEMENT/ACTION ITEM: Add SO/AC membership model to Reference mechanism when we refer to the model in the document (executive summary). Clarify "reference mechanism" in glossary/definitions section. Ensure it does not prejudice final outcome of CCWG deliberation

ACTION ITEM - Remove sentence on p. 6 paragaph 16 and specificy IANA functions on p. 11

ACTION ITEM - Check CWG parts to make sure we do not make changes to CWG work 

Section 2

- Law firms working on line edits and remaining questions that will be sent within 24 hours. 

--> Legal "sanity check"

- Comment made that we want IRP to be available for other claims: breach of fiduciary duty for example. Thoughts? 

- Suggestion to reflect Becky's proposal in report

Feedback::

- p 17 para 56 - good addition but we need to strike consensus policies. Para 60: too much constraint is being put on ICANN - we want a multistakholder organization and will end up with dead multilateral organization due to constraints

ACTION ITEM - Specification 1 to be removed (WP2)

- Para 60 - ICANN's mission is defined and cannot change without decision

- Legal terminology needs to be fleshed out

- Capitalize mission. There are well-defined missions at start of Bylaws - as longer as interpreted in same way of Bylaws, no problem. We need to be aware of interpretation 

ACTION ITEM – Capitalize mission
ACTION ITEM - Add clarifying sentence drawing specific attention to Sebastien's comment so that community can react as needed. 

We plan to issue an updated version of this document as soon as possible after the call and will give the group the opportunity to go through the document for at least 24 hours. Comment will be invited: by 23:59 UTC on May 1. After that we will check for consistency,  add final touches but will not edit content for final comment. 

--> Suggestion to wait for lawyers' edits 

- paragraph 95 - Change sentence to reflect diveristy of internet. paragraph 99 add "and its users" 

ACTION ITEM - Becky to look at paragraph 95 and 99 requests for changes

 
Sections 2.6 

Input from legal is coming. SO/AC membership model will be reflected. 

ACTION ITEM: # paragraphs

Difference between recalling entire Board and removing individual Directors has been reflected.

Feedback:

- "rooted in private sector" objection - ICANN has had involvement with governements and users - roots are just as deep. Claiming that it is because ICANN is rooted in the private sector is incorrect 

--> Alternative A - Rational: more closely ICANN to existing structure and keeping ICANN in private sector. Suggest moving text in yellow to D.

--> Suggestion to remove "and in keeping ICANN rooted in the private sector" 

ACTION ITEM - Remove "private sector" reference

- We need to clarify in document 1) with regard to creating unincorporated association: SO/AC would not become UA and lose current identity but would create UA that would be alter ego of SO/ACs used to exercise functions; 2) Each SO/AC will be a separate class of member - If all members are in same class then right to spill Board is right of majoriy of member but if each in separate class we can have a higher threshold. 

ACTION ITEM: Greg to point to specific section and suggest language. 

- Language in 2.6.1.1 - 4C - will clarify language. 

- #178: what is intended by "tabled" - does it mean issues explicitely raised?

ACTION ITEM - Remove"tabled" in paragraph 178 p 40

ACTION ITEM -  Add clearer specifications (beyond legal firm memo) in appendix on SO/AC membership 

- Paragraph 163 p 36 - We are talking about current structure. Specify that it's not meant to be that we won't evolve structure. 

- Paragraph 169 p 38 - 2 alternatives will be 4 solutions 

ACTION ITEM: Remove "2 alternatives"

- 2.6.2: paragraph 174 Current planning to set up budget is very tight - we need flexibility on timing. Paragraph 175: open financials

--> Timing is implementation detail. Financials is also WS2. 

--> Ask for feedback on this. 

ACTION ITEM: Jordan and Sebastien to discuss 2.6.4 edit offline. 

 
Section 2.7

Paragraph 262 p50: decision to approve is subject to challenge 

ACTION ITEM - Paragraph 262 edit to be made. 

- Mismatch between CWG to have review fundamental and CCWG point that standard. 

--> p55 - periodic review of IANA functions - paragraph 326 we have verbatim of CWG comment that it be a fundamental Bylaw. 

ACTION ITEM - Align with CWG specifications

 
Section 3

Management abstract conclusions and how to apply stress tests have been added along with a handful of small edits.

Feedback: 

- Paragraph 349 text incorrectly pasted

ACTION ITEM - Review paragraph 349

 
Section 4

Item added: enhancements should be made to ICANN's whistle-blower policy

 
Section 5

Significant changes have been added.

Timeline has changed  - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/R-CCWG_timeline_v0.9.7.4.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1430316024000&api=v2 . We have incorporated aspects that were described on Tuesday. Input on Bylaws approval was received and included. 

Feedback: 

- "only as required" - understanding that we would use second comment period to hammer out some of the details. We won't be putting out new issue. Make sure the text does not preclude ability to hammer out details. 

ACTION ITEM - Refine timeline language on second comment period

- P88 paragraph 695 - No need for representative to speak for SO/ACs - reword so that it does prejudice that decision. 

--> 696 replaces 695

ACTION ITEM - Delete 695 

- Have timeline in Word document 

- We are having meeting on 19 June - not intensive meeting. 

ACTION ITEM - Clarify on timeline and in report that 19 June meeting is confirmed. 

- Legal counsel presence requested at 19 June meeting

 
Section 6 

16 questions and IRP questions have been moved to a separate detailed appendix I 

Questions will be in a document for comment period: easier to provide/collect input

- Specify in report that shorter comment period and second comment period and apologize.

ACTION ITEM - Insert paragraph into public comment period announcement to explain why we are not using standard 40-day comment period and clarify that it is an exception.

- Suggestion to have the 40-day comment period. 

--> If we go to 40 responses will arrive on June 14 and we won't have time to review by Buenos Aires and have next steps discussion

- Consider 40 days for second comment period 

- This work will impact future of ICANN - we don't have to rush. 

--> Intersessional meetings are hard to achieve. This would push the timeline even further. 

- There used to be rule that documents need to be published a certain amount of time before meeting. 

--> That rule is still in place - analysis of comment will inform Buenos Aires discussion.

 
3. XPLANE material presentation and discussion 

This proposal is in draft mode. 

2 sections: 1) empowered community overview and details of individual powers; 2) improved IRP.

This represents overview of empowered legal structure - it answers 1) what is it; 2) how does it work; 4) who gets to vote; and 5) how is it exercised. 

Key elements of community powers are described. 

Surfacing key elements of IRP that are new including details of new IRP panel, process flow of IRP, decision characteristics of IRP decisions.

ACTION ITEM - Provide feedback on Xplane slides by Saturday, 2 May - 23:59 UTC

Feedback:

- It will help us to explain mechanism to our communities. Is this meant to be part of the report?

--> Tool to help community understand our work - appendix to report 

--> Facilitate understanding of what we have been doing.

 
4. Next Steps

We will be getting legal counsel's feedback today at 18:00 UTC. In the meantime, we welcome editorial comments on the version of report we have so far. We will strive to provide updated version including legal updates and any other updates received by 23:59 by April 30 to give final check for review.

Deadline will be 23:59 UTC May 1st for final comment at that point will turn into mode to provide document for public comment on Monday. 

ACTION ITEM: CoChairs/staff to circulate new iteration of report that captures legal counsel feedback (18:00 UTC) and edits received on Thursday, 30 April by 23:59 UTC. The deadline to send input on the version to be circulated today is 1 May - 23:59 UTC. 
We will circulate graphs from Xplane to the list - comments invited on whether graphics reflect proposals accurately and do not create misleading impressions. We invite you to send feedback on Xplane graphics by Saturday, 2 May - 23:59 UTC so that we can issue graphical explanations simultaneously 

We are also working on translation - hopefully we will receive them asap. 

We will start planning webinars with community and will put together engagement plan on Monday. 

ACTION ITEM – Share engagement plan early next week
 
Request to include a before/after approach. 
--> Before or after will be not be ready for Monday but staff and Cochairs to start planning for before/after presentation
ACTION ITEM - Staff and Cochairs to start planning for before/after presentation

 
Documents Presented

XPLANE presentation of draft diagrams

----------------------

Intensive work days - Day 2 - Session 3 - 24 April

Attendees: 

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Bruce Tonkin, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bacholette, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (23)

Participants:  Alain Bidron, Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Chris LaHatte, David McAuley, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Gary Campbell, Greg Shatan, James Gannon, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Kevin Espinola, Matthew Shears, Olivier Muron, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Sabine Meyer, Vrikson Acosta   (22)

Legal Counsel:  Colleen Brown, Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Miles Fuller, Sharon Flanagan, Steve Chiodini, Tyler Hilton

Staff:  Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Hillary Jett

Apologies:   Eberhard Lisse

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT Session #3 24 April.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT Session #3 24 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p7ti4frgbg9/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-1600-24apr15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

Session 3 - 16:00 – 19:00 UTC (time converter)

  1. Recap of session 2 (5’)
  2. Outstanding stress tests - Stress tests where the contingency does not appear to be fully mitigated (20’)
    1. Including stress test 21: Government official demands rescind of a ccTLD
  3. Second reading of outstanding issues for public comment report (120’)
  4. Next Steps – Work Plan (30’)

Notes

Rollcall:  all participants in the AC room


1) Recap of session 2

Preserving ICANN commitment from the AoC and through the AoC reviews, but not covered the bylaws changes suggested by the stress tests. 

2)  Outstanding stress tests - Stress tests where the contingency does not appear to be fully mitigated 

Stress test 21.  Govt official demands a reassignment of a ccTLD.  Currently no mitigation on this test. 

No answer, but to see if a revocation of a reassignment that did not follow procedure: RFC, FOI and GAC principles were considered.  CWG has suggest that ccNSO will soon be working on policy.  The test articulates the issues, but no solution/bylaws proposal or mechanism emerging. 

CWG request that CCWG should note define mechanisms, ccNSO addressing this.  Unless perhaps out appeals mechanisms apply.  

ccNSO has been working with GAC on transfer and revocation, a framework of interpretation (FOI) worked on.  The FOI references an appeals mechanism, but the ccNSO is still working on the appeals mechanisms, and as ongoing work the ccNSO is not will to sign up for any particular appeals process.  And not all ccTLD managers are subject to 1591 as their TLD assigned before it was issues and before the GAC principles of 2006 2005. 

Could the local parties use the IRP mechanisms?  Or in line with the CWG input should we say this should not happen in the IRP. 
The view of the ccNSO is until ccNSO policy is developed on this the IRP is not applicable to the relegation process. 

Suggestion that we include language to say these issues should not be subject to the IRP, pending ccNSO policy. 

Action: Becky to confirm with ccNSO if this non-inclusion in the IRP, is acceptable.

Keep current text, this mechanism could be available if compatible with the Policy development process of the ccNSO

This section was frozen before the CWG request, we will be updating this in the next few days.  CWG explicit not to address pending ccNSO policy. 

Action:  update text redelegation and revocation issues should not be subject to the IRP, pending ccNSO policy. And considering GAC contributions. 

Action to ensure the IRP txt is aligned as above.


3)  Second reading of outstanding issues for public comment report 

NomCom to recall board members or a new committee and community.

Don’t believe NomCom will be interested in or able to remove people appointed by a previous NomCom.  And don’s want to put a NomCom in the position of taking instruction from the SO/AC ash this affects the independence of the NomCom.

pre-sign an letter to resign under certain conditions, and conditions might be a super-majority of the SO/AC to express dissatisfaction with their service.  This could remove one or more. 

Suggestion for the recall NomCom be created.  

This NomCom takes the SO/AC appeal and no complication over the person’s appointment.  The only issue is the complaint.  A simple matter

Disagree that the pre-signed letter is enough to remove a director, as opposed to being used to initiate a process.  It may tend to be a reaction to a situation going on and does not involve  a check and balance.

Comment: use the current NomCom, does not see the difference in the board process. 

Comment: Removal for cause may cause appeals and other processes.  A group formed ad Hoc may be hard to fit in the member/designator models. 

(legal)  The resignation letter.  Not meant to usurp and checks and balance.  It's the end of the process in an entire board recall situation.  A contractual obligation for the director to step down from the board if the sending organization requested. 

Current NomCom can be used.  The SO/AC may also have a changing membership.  This is the same for the NomCom

In favor of Avri’s proposal to create a new structure of a recall NomCom as in the draft proposal. 

Many seem in favor of not putting the current NomCom on the spot.  And this suggests the recall NomCom mechanisms should be favored. The conditional pre-signed resignation, also useful as the NomCom would not have a voting right in the community mechanism.  

The recall NomCom originally written for individual director recall.  But not the whole board, and that the NomCom appointees to the board could stand or fall with the rest of the board by whatever mechanism is adopted for that.

If the recall NomCom constituted separately from the NomCom then lawyers have suggested this may not be possible as they are not the appointing body.  
[Possible Action for legal sub-team to consult with the lawyers TBC]

Seem that the recall mechanism would be outside the community.  Have often spoken as the threat of removal as a means of influence what a Board member might do.  

Comment.  Discomfort with the notion of removing a Board member.  They are there for 3 years, community does not see al their work.  

On the table: 
Let the community do it, with some push.
The recall NomCom, which can only take place with a trigger from the SO/AC community.  
Would be under the NomCom bylaws, and if a member model the NomCom would be an unincorporated association. and the recall NomCom would come under the NomCom’s procedures. 
Or use the existing NomCom, but hopefully keeping the petitioning mechanisms. 

(legal) The power to remove is a reason for having a member of designator model, with reason or no reason.  And hearing it would be difficult for the NomCom to do this is problematic.  But the proposal is viable.  Could have two committee under the unincorporated association entity and one of those could appoint and one recall.  For individual directors.  And these directors could still file a pre-resignation letter for their removal, or absolutely needed for the removal of the whole Board. 

Is the Avri option what Josh described?  It is his the model could be implemented if we go with a member designator model and the NomCom becomes a unincorporated association. 

Going forward if the NomCom is to put someone on the board it does need to be at least a designator, an unincorporated association.  And that entity can have two committees.  The process from the view of counsel is as described. 

A problem is that the new committee is constituted in the same numbers as the NomCom, so very different from the community mechanism. If constituted same as the community mechanism could go along with this. 

Note, the process is to decide which option we put to the community.  

Some do not have enough information to make the decision now, and objection to the use of a poll.

Would be advisable to have the same organization principles for the group that recalls as the one that appoints. 

If member or designators, then the groups appointing to the board must be unincorporated association.  The NomCom would need to take on the required structure. Then the question is should the same group of people who appoint be different from those who remove. 

Then SO/AC community reps would bring in their input in the petition. 

Suggestion for a legal paper to explain the options. 

Action.  Chairs will review the transcript and put a proposal to the group, and double check with the lawyers. 

Board recall powers 
Reference proposal.  5 for SO and AC of ALAC and GAC, and 2 for RSAC and SSAC brings a total of 29 people.  75% is 22 of 29.  80% 4/5, is 24 votes of 29.  85% is 25 votes of 29. 

Petition is 3 SO/AC.

If we want to block a single group from blocking a proposal then a 85% trigger is not workable.  Assuming that the will be able to split vote, then 80% is appropriate, 75% if a block vote.  The dynamics of the ICANN community will make reaching such a high threshold as 75% will be difficult.  

The group is leaning to individual vote. Removal of the whole board, and need stability.  
80% means if a single group blocks then requires unanimity from the rest and that is too high. Abstention are not counting.
  
The options are 75% and 80% with 75% preferred as the reference option. 

The removal NomCom would have a different structure. 

The pre-resignation letter essential, to ensure the recall process has effect. If the 75% threshold is met then expectation is that all directors would resign.

Diversity (participation and inclusion) as an issue for WS2.
This proposal is consistent with Jan Scholte’s advice received before the meetings. 
Is included in the core values work?

Seeking what does it mean to be transparent by default?  How do we record what is classified and be aware of when something is classified.  And as has come up in ATRT, just because something has classified at the time, does it mean to be so in 5 years. It is almost default that every inquiry requires a DIDP

Not seen any objection to these two items 

Also suggest looking at ICANN’s whistleblower program in WS2.  

In WS1 the 4 AoC reviews we are suggesting bringing over they will have better access than before to information needed to use during a review.  

A package of three items to be added to WS2

Diversity
Transparency and 
Whistleblower policy

Noting we will ask the community for any additional issues during public comment

Package accepted.

AoC Section 8 

Identified that 8b is already reflected in the ICANN bylaws through article 18 offices.  And members and designators could block any changes.  

Question is whether we want to move article 18 to fundamental.

Comment: to reflect that here are 2 opinions in the group that it should either be kept in the bylaws or as fundamental.

Does it cause concern for anyone to replace principles by headquarters. 

Suggestion to seek advice from the lawyers on actual language.  

The bylaws are more specific in CA/Los Angeles, and bylaws only refer to the United States.  Registered offices are often in different states from headquarters. The articles capture that it is a CA corporation, so the package captures the whole. 

Pedro: The CCWG is considering whether bylaws Article 18 Section 1 should keep its current status or be among the bylaws sections listed as “Fundamental Bylaws”. In the latter case, any changes to it  would require positive approval by Members/Designators. 

Suggestion that to allow flexibility and a lower threshold, if it is to be a fundamental bylaw or traditional. 

Both options will be in there.

Reviews in the bylaws and AoC

Highlight difference of today and being proposed.  

proposed: assessing the role and effectiveness of the GAC in its interaction with the board.

in the AoC, item f.  Implementation of recommendation. The review team may terminate reviews and create new reviews. 

Timing.  ART is every 3 years.  Suggest no less frequently than every 5 years, which would allow us to do this more frequently. 

5 years:  The current implementation is from the receipt of report, so adding an additional year. 

The itemized points are all mandatory, and believed others out of scope. Need to take care to allow flexibility.   

Review other review teams.  Clear in ATRT2, first to review other review teams, 1 lack expertise, 2.  exponentially increasing work. suggested the review be done by the successor review. 

'timing".  to make a point about the time the board received it. 
unclear on itemized issues
(f) May be repeated in each review or in the chapeau

Each ATRT must review the previous ATRT.  

Action Alan to provide a sentence about the reviewing past reviews (WHOIS etc)

comment:  the general principles of what we are trying to archive is actually captured in section of 11 of the ATRT2 report.

If there is a pressing need for a more frequent review then the proposal gives that flexibility.

Review effectiveness of WHOIS (directory services — is included)
Privacy concerns added with the OECD principles, and this is new
AoC every three years, and left at three years (expecting change wrt directory services)

Evaluation of the new gTLD.  Change of languages as written pre new gTLD program. Competition and consumer trust and choice are reflected in the core values.

Subsequent rounds should not be opened until the review of previous review implemented. 

Action: Should take on the action item that CWG will recommend an IANA performance review will be conducted as CWG requirements, as a placeholder.  

Proceed with language as suggested? 

Action: Staff+ Steve Del Bianco to make sure the text in the reviews tables lines up

Fulfilling CWG requirements 

Ability of community to veto the budget.  Feasible, but more enforceable under the member model.

Ability to set up an IANA function review.  And that is be submitted as a fundamental bylaw

Suggested that the CWG would be placed in the same section as the other reviews.  Currently reviews are not Fundamental Bylaws. 

The ability to trigger ad hoc [special] reviews.  

The power to convene a review is driven by the community. And there is room for this special out of cycle review.

ccTLD revocation issue covered. 

The IANA functions review in the CWG only covers naming functions, but it might evolve within the ICG. 

Next Steps

Document update with the feedback received.  Update by the rapporteurs, staff and co-chairs. 

Final document for review and approval by the CCWG 

Final document May 1st, for final adjustments by the group, with a goal to publish on May 4th.  And public comment for 30 days, comment period agreed by the group.  The final review should not be for substantial change: editorial and inconsistencies.

First check of the document on Tuesday's regular call, (April 28) and if needed hold an additional call on Thursday (April 30). 

Is this acceptable? 

Will affect the CCWG timeline. The public comment start was April 28, moving to May 4.  

Public comment moved by a few days.  Staff complies a review tool for the community to review.

Public comment 30 or 28 days?  
30 days, green tick please
Objections to keeping to 30 days red cross
Agreement to open public comment for 30days.

The advisors will also be given opportunity to review the document. 

We will review the CWG stress test.

Kavouss: profound thanks to the co-chairs, the rapporteurs, working group chairs. 

Thanks to colleagues for you participation and support, I have learnt a lot.  Thanks staff.  And congratulations to ICANN.  Thank you to you all.  

co-chairs:  Thanks to staff, rapporteurs, lawyers and thanks to the whole group. 

Adjourn. 

Action Items

Action: Becky to confirm with ccNSO if this non-inclusion in the IRP, is acceptable.
Action: update text redelegation and revocation issues should not be subject to the IRP, pending ccNSO policy. And considering GAC contributions.
Action: to ensure the IRP txt is aligned as above.
Action: Chairs will review the transcript and put a proposal to the group, and double check with the lawyers.
Action: Alan to provide a sentence about the reviewing past reviews (WHOIS etc)
Action: Should take on the action item that CWG will 
Action: Staff+ Steve Del Bianco to make sure the text in the reviews tables lines up

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Intensive work days - Day 2 - Session 2 - 24 April

Attendees: 

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, James Bladel, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bacholette, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (21)

Participants: Adebunmi Akinbo, Alain Bidron, Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Chris LaHatte, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Kevin Espinola, Matthew Shears, Olivier Muron, Pedro da Silva, Rudi Daniel, Sabine Meyer, Seun Ojediji, Vrikson Acosta, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben   (24)

Legal Counsel:  Colleen Brown, Edward McNicholas, Ingrid Mittermaier, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Miles Fuller, 

Staff:   Alice Jansen, Adam Peake, Brenda Brewer, Hillary Jett, Theresa Swinehart, 

Apologies:   Eberhard Lisse, Izumi Okutani

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT Session 2 24 April.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT Session 2 24 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p5t6w4lxmgh/

The audio recording is available here:   http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-1300-24apr15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

Session 2 - 13:00 – 14:00 UTC (time converter)

  1. Recap of session 1 (5’)
  2. Section 6.7.1 - Preserving ICANN commitments from the AoC (20’)
  3. Section 6.7.2 - AoC Reviews - 2nd reading  (15’)
  4. Section 6.8 - Bylaws changes suggested by stress tests - 2nd reading (15’)
  5. Next Steps (5’)

Notes

NOTES (Notes have not been reviewed by CCWG-CoChairs yet) 

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

Becky Burr - Josh Hoffeimer - Edward McNicholas on phone line only

Recap of session 1

We went through items listed under WS2 and the list was confirmed by the group along with a suggestion to add transparency and diversity. We have discussed sections 1-5 of report and have confirmed what is in the report in terms of substance. An amendment  to ICANN "remains" accountable was suggested by Robin. We are waiting for the suggested text to sent to group. Content of these sections was confirmed. 

There was a suggestion that we should reorganize report: it takes 25 pages before finding conclusions. Glossary will be added to the report. We need a good summary document to make it easier for community to read the documents.

The questions assembled for the public comment period will be to the point, clear and easy to understand to make sure we have answers that are reflective of the recommendations. We further discussed weighing options. Variations will be presented to community for comment. 

Models boil down to designators and members. More discussion is needed on liability i.e. liability risk of being sued if incorporated under California law and jurisdiction. Membership model is the reference for our work - it is getting substantial traction in our group. Designators will be reference in comment period. 

- Bylaws model will be among the models up for consideration. 

ACTION ITEM Take on FAQs suggestion and publish the responses 

ACTION ITEM - Provide Sebastien with an answer on models

Preserving ICANN commitments from the AoC

We have talked about incorporation of AoC into Bylaws as part of mission, core values conversation. The initiative to bring AoC reviews into Bylaws stems from ST #14 - without the IANA contract it presents opportunity for ICANN to walk away from AoC. WP1 determined which paragraphs would be appropriate to be migrated into Bylaws. We then turned to AoC reviews. We added comment that if successful - the document becomes unnecessary  The next ATRT could be triggered by the next Bylaws. 

On paragraph 7 - ICANN "commits" is appropriate in Affirmation but not in Bylaws

ACTION ITEM - Change commit into shall 

Mapping AoC into core values was covered yesterday. 8.b is ICANN's commitment to maintain not-for-profit under US jurisdiction. That is substantially covered by Bylaws article 18.1. Existing bylaw provision is being preserved and AoC brought into Bylaws to fill in gaps. We then need to turn to question of whether 18.1 article needs to be a fundamental Bylaw. Not-for-Profit is featured in articles of incorporation item 3. We should clarify whether veto does apply to articles of incorporation or possibly to give positive consent 

- Insertion of non-commercial financial impact: the is specified under general commitment and there is no added value. Searching for non commercial financial impact definition as concerns might be introducing something that might be ambiguous. With regards to #8, the articles of incorporation - unless made supermajority - can be changed as easily as Bylaws (not fundamental Bylaws). We need to justify why we are taking significant step. Articles of Incorporation are a statement of fact - bylaws are a statement about future. 

ACTION ITEM - Justify decisions we are taking with regards to AoC. 

- We need to make sure we don't get into wordsmithing. Non-commercial is something we need to be aware of.

- Our reliance upon articles to capture not-for-profit assumes we have power to block changes to articles. If we cannot control change, we need to migrate non-commercial article into Bylaws 

--> Articles amendments currently require 2/3 approval by directors, and if there are members, 2/3 of the members

- We don't need to refer to non-commercial otherwise commercial will be excluded from paragraph. "Will" perform is not acceptable, "Shall" is obligation. (or should) 

ACTION ITEM - Use brackets to highlight different options and move back to this later

- AoC 4 (impact assessment) & 7 (general transparency requirements) include important concepts for transparency. It is proposed that they be inserted into Bylaws

-ICANN is considered business club - it is opportunity for ICANN to show it has other impact than commercial. Suggestion to change "non commercial" to "non-financial"

Non-commercial is wider than non-financial. 

AGREEMENT - Change non-commercial to non-financial 

- All AoC are promoting SSR, transparency, multistakeholder. Section c is about particular jurisdiction. If it was more general it would be fundamental. But since under particular jurisdiction don't see how this is fundamental. 

- Option between HQs and principles: HQs have more meaning than principles. Suggestion to seek HQs instead of having principles. Whether this paragraph would be fundamental and normal: if we put every thing from AoC into fundamental, could create sensitivies outside CCWG.

- Fundamental difference between paragraphs from AoC and this one relating to HQs location. We have among the community conflicting views about it. Consider more carefully 

- This does not need to be fundamental bylaws. Even if imported AoC reviews, it is already in bylaws that statement is a strong arm that had nothing to do with reviews itself. Let's not make it stronger than it already is. 

- 1) principal office & HQs - deferred to lawyers ; 2) import 8.b. into bylaws and giving it fundamental or standard protection. 

ACTION ITEM – Defer to lawyers on principal office or HQ

- Surprised b not brought into bylaws as fundamental (multistakehoder etc)

- 8b should be fundamental bylaw. this will be scrutinized.

- Reference it as normal Bylaw - alternative would be fundamental Bylaw

 - Lawyers have focused on governance documents. Empower the community to have more control. Cautionnary flags that recommendation or outcome that fundamental decision whether decision to be moved out of US could be decision of vote (2/3) - that would not be consistent with drivers. Recognize that this decision is momentus and avoid perception that jurisdictional shift could be engineered by specific group

RECAP: Confusion about what is being proposed. To be rediscussed.

ACTION ITEM - Second read 8.b proposal (fundamental or not)

AoC Reviews

Community has requested that reviews should be imported into Bylaws. Text has been proposed. First reading indicated overall agreement of what would look like. 

4 suggestions were made: 1) ability to sunset old review and create new ones; 2) community appoints its representatives; 3) access to internal documents; 4) timeframe; 5) Board shall consider approval and begin implementation. Requirements would apply to all reviews

ATRT2 recommended that there be an annual report. There have been yearly periodic reviews about progress to be made in implementing changes. Objective is to integrate ATRT requirement into a Bylaw statement.

- Diversity concerns: we need to find a way to have diversity in any new group created. 

--> Only diversity you can make is ask groups to consider diversity given that no prescribed methodology.

ACTION ITEM - Determine how we can insert diversity into text. Sébastien to provide draft text. 

AGREEMENT - This will be presented for public comment with note that diversity would need to be inserted into text.

Bylaws changes suggested by stress tests

6.8.1 is a reflection of ATRT recommendation:  force Board to respond to Adivsory Committee formal advice. 

Require consultation and mutually acceptable solutionfor GAC advice that is backed by consensus. 

AGREEMENT – No objections - reading complete

Next Steps 

ACTION ITEM - Defer recap to session 3

Action Items

Recap of session 1

ACTION ITEM Take on FAQs suggestion and publish the responses 

ACTION ITEM - Provide Sebastien with an answer on models

Preserving ICANN commitments from the AoC

ACTION ITEM - Change commit into shall 

ACTION ITEM - Justify decisions we are taking with regards to AoC. 

ACTION ITEM - Use brackets to highlight different options and move back to this later

ACTION ITEM – Defer to lawyers on principal office or HQ

AGREEMENT - Change non-commercial to non-financial 

ACTION ITEM - Second read 8.b proposal (fundamental or not)

AoC Reviews

ACTION ITEM - Determine how we can insert diversity into text. Sébastien to provide draft text. 

AGREEMENT - This will be presented for public comment with note that diversity would need to be inserted into text.

Bylaws changes suggested by stress tests

AGREEMENT – No objections - reading complete

Next Steps

ACTION ITEM - Defer recap to session 3

----------------------------

Itensive Day meetings - Day 2 - Session 1 - 24 April

Attendees: 

Members:   Alice Munyua, Alan Greenberg, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Izumi Okutani, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (19)

Participants: Alain Bidron, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Chris LaHatte, David McAuley, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, James Ganno, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Kevin Espinola, Matthew Shears, Olivier Muron, Pedro da Silva, Phil Buckingham, Sabine Meyer, Seun Ojedeji, Vrikson Acosta, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben   (20)

Legal Counsel:  Greg Colvin, Holly Gregory, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Tyler Hilton

Staff:   Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Jim Trengrove, Brenda Brewer, Laena Rahim

Apologies:   Eberhard Lisse

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT Session #1 24 April.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT Session #1 24 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2ifz90ml34/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-24apr15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

Session 1 - 08:00 – 10:00 UTC (time converter)

  1. Recap of day 1 (5’)
  2. Section 8 - Work stream 2 proposals (20’)
  3. Discussion of Sections 1 -> 5 (15’)
  4. Questions for public comment report (to be provided by CoChairs) (15’)
  5. Community Mechanisms (60’)
  6. Next Steps (5’)

Notes

IN SUMMARY

 

Section 8 - Work stream 2 proposals

ACTION ITEM - Avri to circulate language to list for discussion

ACTION ITEM - Sebastien to provide language on diversity for discussion on list

 

Discussions of sections 1-5 

ACTION ITEM - Rapporteurs from work areas 1 and 2 to review language confirm it is accurate

ACTION ITEM - Review how can adjust structure to get reader quicker to core of matter

ACTION ITEM - Insert a glossary placeholder

ACTION ITEM - Check whether this is Charter language 

ACTION ITEM - Robin to send proposed edits to list for discussion 

ACTION ITEMJordan to circulate this language on list for discussion

AGREEMENT - Stable text that we can provide in advance to translation 

 

Questions for public comment report (to be provided by CoChairs)

AGREEMENT: Cochairs and Rapporteurs to adjust sections to incorporate questions after intensive days so that last version incorporates questions for you to assess

ACTION ITEM - Set up point of contact for clarifying questions as part of public comment process

 

Community Mechanisms 

ACTION ITEM: - Reach out to SSAC RSSAC on weight options

AGREEMENT - Membership model to be considered a reference for our work. We will be signaling it has more traction but will also leave reference to designators in model for community to have all context in public comment period

ACTION ITEM:- Clarify that legal assessment is solely based on California law

 

SESSION CONCLUSIONS

- We have two discussion points for WS2 proposal that will be taken onboard for session 2

- Jordan, Robin, Avri and Sebastien to circulate language to list for discussion

- Significant progress was made on community mechanisms. 

- It is clear that member option is fitting key requirements best but uncertainty whether stakeholders at large will accept this model. we will need to provide legal advice to inform community but will need to be practical

 

NOTES (Notes have not been reviewed by CCWG-CoChairs yet)

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

Josh Hoffeimer - Tijani Benjemaa - Barrack Otieno and Alice Munyua not on Adobe Connect at this time

Recap of Day 1

Revised mission core values and notion of Fundamental Bylaws are approved . We have conducted a first review on IRP enhancement - a second reading will be made today. We obtained approval of request for reconsideration. Community mechanisms, recall of Board, recall of individual Board members, reject budget/strategic plan, reject changes to ICANN Bylaws to be rediscussed. 

Section 8 - Work stream 2 proposals

Current list available in the draft report includes: 

  • Enhancements to ICANN's accountability based on law applicable to its action - 
  • - Enhancements to Ombudsman role & function
  • - Limiting ICANN's ability to deny transparency/disclosure requests
  • - Improvements to ICANN's budgeting and planning process that guarantee the ability for the community to have input, and for input to be given due cosnideration
  • - Define security audits and certification requirements for ICANN's IT system

Feedback

- Consider alternative options for jurisdiction

- DIDP (as a follow up to day 1:  review of DIDIP recommended as it relates to IRP and reconsideration request. Suggestion for DIDP to be a broader review. 

--> This would be captured in "Limiting ICANN's ability to deny transparency/disclosure requests"

- What kind of timeframe are we expecting? At what point will we get to these? Will we be waiting for implementation? 

--> WS1 we are working on items that need to be prior to translation. It will include adoption and implementation phase. We will have freed up time for group to dive into WS2. 

- They should be a review process put into this. We will be recommending substantial restructuring. We need to have checks and balance and this concept should be captured. 

--> Envisages Team exercising implementation oversight and if any issue is spotted, we can reconvene and work on that.

- We are putting all transparency off yet again. There is a problem with how much stuff ends up needing DIDP. You have to work to get things visible. It is a broader issue than just improving DIDP. Transparency philosophy of ICANN (methodology) should be an issue that is noted separately. Suggested language: Institute a culture of default transparency at ICANN, including guidelines for when it is acceptable to classify information, requirements for logging decisions to classify information and procedure for de-classifying information.not sure classify is the right term, but it all that occurs to me at this point.

ACTION ITEM - Avri to circulate language to list for discussion

- What could be the link between WS2 and ATRT3? Consider diversity: how do we enhance diversity across ICANN's organization?

--> We have recommendation that relates to ATRT review - connection is made between our work and future reviews. 

ACTION ITEM - Sebastien to provide language on diversity for discussion on list

Discussion of Sections 1 -> 5

Sections present work we are doing: introduction & background, methodology, summary of problem statement & definition, Accountability of existing accountability mechanisms, input gathered by community (short summary of work area 2 of input). Work area 1 and work area 2 outputs will be put into appendices. 

ACTION ITEM - Rapporteurs from work areas 1 and 2 to review language confirm it is accurate

- Let's not spend too much on this. 

- 20 pages to get to substance might be too heavy 

- Assess whether could change order of sections

ACTION ITEM - Review how can adjust structure to get reader quicker to core of matter

- Suggestion to leave as it is and to include a complete management abstract for community 

- We need to write report for readers

- Decision hard to make in absence of executive summary. Need to find recommendations quickly - have meat closer to the front

- Suggestion to have a placeholder for a glossary at end of report

ACTION ITEM - Insert a glossary placeholder

- Edits on introduction and Background: "remains" 

ACTION ITEM - Check whether this is Charter language 

ACTION ITEM - Robin to send proposed edits to list for discussion 

- Avoid language that there is no accountability at ICANN

- Combine while there is a certain degree of accountability with enhancing

- Corporate reaches level of accountability that is satisfactory to community is absence of contract would be a good way to frame it.

- We are enhancing current accountability but also creating a new one and that needs to be clarified.

--> Introducing mechanism would enhance mechanism

- Language suggesed by Jordan "From this dialogue, the Enhancing ICANN accountability process was developed so ICANN can realise  a level of accountability to the global multistakeholder community that is satisfactory inthe abence of its historical contractual relationship with the U.S Government. This contractual relationship has been perceived as a backstop with regard to ICANN's organisation-wide accountability since 1998." 

 

ACTION ITEM: Jordan to circulate this language on list for discussion

AGREEMENT - Stable text that we can provide in advance to translation 

Questions for public comment report (to be provided by CoChairs)

In Istanbul: we agreed we would be seeking confirmation as much as possible on our proposals and try to have questions that are focused on getting feedback.

Questions would be standard about whether community agrees with the recommendation, agrees with list of requirements and ask how the community would recommend amending requirements. Asking for guidance on preferred options from community, stressing need to understand rational for prefering issues so that can use feedback. 

This section of the session is for us to get feedback on how to organize fitting questions into the report. It is a good way to open discussion on this. 

- We need to talk about status of report i.e. clarifyr on consensus. There are cases for which there are alternatives/options - community should pronounce in favor or against and could provide alternatives. How would we prepare these questions? It should be consistent with Charter. 

- In order to have proper evaluation, we need proper questions. 

- Asking clear-cut questions on specific parts of report. will enable us to have answers that focus on specific recommendations.

AGREEMENT: Cochairs and Rapporteurs to adjust sections to incorporate questions after intensive days so that last version incorporates questions for you to assess

- When you raise questions to public, we specify focal points in a way that people who need clarification can seek these clarifications. Suggestion to have Rapporteurs, Cochairs to work on focal point and to have dedicated source available for the community.

ACTION ITEM - Set up point of contact for clarifying questions as part of public comment process

Quick turnaround will be needed. 

- FAQs could also be useful. 

Community Mechanisms 

Seeking further comments on whether want to go with option 1 or option 2 - composition of community representation: Two options : 1) 5 to 2 .; 2) 4 to 2 - for public comment i.e. 1) ASO, ccNSO, GNSO  ALAC GAC 5 votes. RSSAC, SSAC 2 votes.; 2) ccNSO, GNSO, ASO, : 4 votes. At-Large, GAC SSAC, RSSAC - 2 votes  

Feedback:

- Need a degree of flexibility 

- Bridge gap between 4 GNSO, 1 for Nominating Committee appointees - GNSO could have 5 match to its own structure easily. There is traction for 5. Should we have 5 vs. 2 or should we have 3 SOs vs lower number of votes. The suggestion to give both ALAC and GAC only 2. 

- We should not have long discussion. We have explained logic of the choices. The difference between is whether ALAC and GAC should have opportunity for same representation as 3 SOs. Support option 1.

- There is more traction for what we call option 1. Recollection that more traction for options for SOs - ALAC - GAC to have equal footing with less for SSAC and RSSAC. 

- ALAC wont approve report that goes with option 2. There are 5 regions. Rational for 4 is that 4 SGs and that disenfranchized some of appointees. 

- Let's retain both options.

- The 2 options presented might not be the best 2. There was suggestions for equal footing yesterday. 

- Establish whether there is sufficient traction for alternatives. Option 1 gets central traction. Could narrow it down to 1 if clear preference. We could highlight preference and provide different options as needed. 

- CCWG discussed two options. During discussions some dregree of preference was expressed for option 1. There might be other options coming from community. We cannot eliminate options at this stage. 

- There is no real specialized expertise needed for level. If go with option and not talk about others, it is superficial. We need legal experts Better to present multiple options as long as clarify which option got traction and why. 

- We need to have clarity on various options on table. 

- Option 1 - call is the "central option" we are considering. This got a little more traction. We used it to test thresholds but not closing door for other options. 

- We have no one from SSAC/RSSAC - have we reached out to them? SSAC is not chartering organization because they do not have bandwidth but has strong interest in it. Need to pass this by them.

ACTION ITEM – Reach out to SSAC RSSAC on weight options

"Central option" not acceptable.

RECAP: We will not be ruling out further options but for reference of work will flag the central option. This will give the community the chance to have altenatives to evaluate. 

IRP and approving budget/strategy plans would be viable through different means. Set of questions has been posed to lawyers. On Unicorporated associations, one of most important answers on set of questions would be ability to sue and be sued and obligation of paying for legal costs. 

-  What of liability?

--> They could still be sued today and in future. Bylaws should have plain and clear statements. 

- If challenging ICANN decisions, how can you ensure ICANN support if your are being sued? 

- 2 facets: 1) give community assurance that covered by ICANN; 2) what is the likelyhood of being sued? Need to convey that there are risks already that we are clarifying in Bylaws 

- What do we want out of this discussion?

--> Have in report that we have traction for either models: designator or member - Aim is to have sense of signaling that we do have more traction for one of the models. 

- Membership model could achieve objectives - designators model even if supplemented by contract could not work 

- Likelyhood of being used: unincorporated associations not having assets and not easy to find and attach to lawsuit, will make it less likely to being sued. Certain degree of risk today - as individual covered by ICANN. It does not increase individual liability. 

- Designators vs. membership may well address some issues. We seem to undestand designator solution may not give us all options/powers we need. Community has to be made aware of issues that were raised. 

-  People can act as partnership - partnership does not present itself as entity. Individuals are still liable. 

- Membership and designators cant be on equal footing - can't be opaque. Support membership. We are developing preference. We have to reference designators model but should clarify preference. 

- Unclear whether incorporation should be done under California law alone. 

--> Delaware would be default because of its flexibility. California gets you to unincorporated associations and you can rely on what exists in chartering but these are details that can be worked on once we have clarification on mechanism. 

--> California has good framework for unincorporated association

- Have questions that have come up about membership model been addressed?

--> Paramount importance is to be able to exhert as much control as possible over Board. The member model is by far the stronger model. What sort of power should have community over budget/strategic plan? The decision rests on how much power you want to reserve to community. Downsides on legal and geopolitical sides: members do have greater statutory rights and we would have to look at how organize bylaws. We would want to take steps to preserve flexibility. Members have rights that need to recognized. Designators powers are limited.

--> We often base decisions on whether should be membership or designator based - California is one of strongest states in members' rights. 

- What if we decide membership is a mistake - can we switch to another model? 

--> California code provides for 45 days notice. If orgaznization wants to convert to designator structure, we would have to get members'  consent to give up statutory rights. 

AGREEMENT - Membership model to be considered a reference for our work. We will be signaling it has more traction but will also leave reference to designators in model for community to have all context in public comment period. 

- Legal analysis may be different in other states and jurisdictions. Clarify that legal assessment is solely based on California law. 

 

ACTION ITEM - Clarify that legal assessment is solely based on California law

Next Steps

- We have two discussion points for WS2 proposal that will be taken onboard for session 2

- Jordan, Robin, Avri and Sebastien to circulate language to list for discussion

- Significant progress was made on community mechanisms. 

- It is clear that member option is fitting key requirements best but uncertainty whether stakeholders at large will accept this model. we will need to provide legal advice to inform community but will need to be practical

--------------------------------------------------

Intensive Day meetings - Day 1 - Session 3 - 23 April

Attendees: 

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (22)

Participants:  Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Carlos Raul Gutierrez, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Gary Campbell, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Justin Smith, Kavouss Arasteh, Mary Uduma, Martin Boyle, Matthew Shears, Olivier Muron, Pedro da Silva, Philip Corwin, Sabine Meyer   (21)

Legal Counsel:  Colleen Brown, Edward McNicholas, Greg Colvin, Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Janet Zagorin, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Miles Fuller, Sharon Flanagan, Tyler Hilton

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Adam Peake, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Hillary Jett, Jim Trengrove, Mary Wong, 

Apologies:   Eberhard Lisse

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT Session #3 23 April.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT Session #3 23 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p1dogyrcdj0/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-1900-23apr15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

Session 3 – 19:00-22:00 UTC (time converter)

  1. Recap of session 2 (10’)
  2. Section 6.2 - Revised Mission, Commitments & Core values (20’)
  3. Section 6.3 - Fundamental commitments & core value (20’)
  4. (Missing section so far - includes discussion on 6.6.4) - Fundamental Bylaws (20’)
  5. Section 6.4 - Independent Review Panel - (80’)
  6. Section 6.5 Reconsideration process enhancements (20’)
  7. Recap and Next Steps (5’)

Notes

IN SUMMARY

Recap of session 2

ACTION ITEM - Read legal counsel's executive summary of membership/designator models

Revised Mission, Commitments & Core values

ACTION ITEM - Insert suggestion regarding numbering resources in mission language 

AGREEMENT - The following proposal is to be plugged into the public comment: setting policy through a bottom-up, consensus–based multistakeholder process

Fundamental Commitments & Core Values

ACTION ITEM - Becky to remove "commits" and identify new terminology

ACTION ITEM State why 8.b is not in the document and whether it is fundamental

Fundamental Bylaws 

ACTION ITEM Add a memo to address request regarding numbering resources

ACTION ITEM Clarify that do not intend to change the current process

ACTION ITEM - Reflect numbering policy-related document in edits

ACTION ITEM - Rediscuss whether 18.1 should be listed as fundamental Bylaw 

AGREEMENT - Fundamental Bylaws will be integrated into public comment period 

Independent Review Panel Enhancements

AGREEMENT - any outcomes from IRP would not be appealable under the proper IRP process but there would always be opportunity to challenge this decision in court of law

AGREEMENT - Remove question 2

ACTION ITEM - Submit final wording to legal counsel to ensure it is appropriate 

ACTION ITEM - Replace "internal" with independent review panel 

ACTION ITEM - Clarify independence requirements

Reconsideration Process Enhancements 

AGREEMENT - DIDP to be dealt with within WS2 

AGREEMENT - The document  can be used as is basis - DIDP is deferred to WS2. Welcome additional questions from WP2. Encourage community to look at items that are encapsulated in template

SESSION CONCLUSIONS

We have reviewed WP2. On mission and core values: fine-tuning is needed. We have open questions on how we address 18.1 and whether we want this as fundamental bylaw. Legal implications needed. 

We are close to final agrement on fundamental Bylaws.

We have received a confirmation on legal feasibility on IRP  and we have outlined key aspects of architecture for public comment. Lot of work is needed on details but we are on the right track for the public comment process. This also applies to the reconsideration process. We will resume some of open questions tomorrow and will come out with significant progress to report to the community. 

----------

NOTES

 

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

Michael Clark, Leon Sanchez not in the Adobe Connect Room

Recap of session 2

We have not yet turned around the updated version of the document we worked on. It is due to issues encountered with notes. It will be sent shortly.

Please read executive summary on membership/designator - community mechanisms executive summary legal counsel produced. 

With respect to Board recall: NomCom proposal and threshold will be discussed tomorrow. It was a useful discussion which shows we have ways to move forward

ACTION ITEM - Read legal counsel's executive summary of membership/designator models

Revised Mission, Commitments & Core values

Substantive discussions were held in Istanbul and during meeting #20. An easy-to-use document was assembled to highlight changes from existing Bylaws and plug in AoC language. Text has been annotated to describe sources.

A revised version including minor edits (in purple) or core values and commitments was circulated to circulate WP1 work on AoC. It corresponds to language that is in frozen draft (on p. 44). 

Feedback

- References to consensus policy and specification 1 - pointer to section of a contract does not belong in Bylaws. Why are we restricting to consensus policy? 

--> This language is not intended to be final Bylaws language - agree that final language would not necessarily refer to specification 1. 

- Our mission is to develop policy based on consensus. Policy mission is used in contracts and bylaws i.e. picket fence: eligible to be changed immediately after approval of implementation of policy that changes contracts that are already enforced. They don't necessarily have effect of changing contract already in force. for instance, new gTLD.

We need to discuss: 1) raison d'etre i.e. develop policy; 2) Enforceability i.e. A policy that converges consensus policy would be binding for contracting parties. A pragmatic way forward would be to use language referring to policy without specifying consensus policies. 

- Unless otherwise specified in Bylaws etc, we should go by consensus.

- Policy issued by SOs should carry consensus.

- Consensus policy has a defined contractual term: policies main only relate to gNSO space. There are also policies that relate to CCs and numbering. Let's not confuse that. 

- Ok to say mission is to develop community by consensus. There are a lot of policies that will not alter contract when setting them. 

- Would bottom up, community-based policies be a possible substitute? 

--> Combination of this language and language from Alan along with specific language of policies for which global coordination is necessary to preserve security, stability etc might work. Problem can be solved by specific language. 

- We are talking about how to constrain ICANN to its mission - for example: how must we deal with timezone database? Outside mission. Netmundial - outside mission. We need to give this organization the opportunity to breathe.

- With consensus of community, consensus policy could be set and required. 

- Proposal: setting policy through a bottom-up, consensus-based multistakeholder process

- Could you achieve consensus through bottom-up? 

- Need to bear in mind there are different definitions of  consensus in various groups at ICANN. 

- Reminder to use CCWG draft report v1.1 for deliberations.

- IP address and number resources: is the intention to leave it as it is? 

ACTION ITEM - Insert suggestion regarding numbering resources in mission language 

AGREEMENT - The following proposal is to be plugged into the public comment: setting policy through a bottom-up, consensus–based multistakeholder process

Fundamental Commitments & Core Values

- Proposal to change text on p. 23 "employ... processes"

- Should be acknowledged ICANN is operating as an open, multistakeholder etc organization?

- Fundamental Commitments - We have added language from articles of incorporation that references international law in order to make it durable 

RECAP - CCWG to further digest language that was suggested – will reopen, as needed. 

Moving to the "purple version" document - 4-23 Commitments and Core Values circulated by Becky prior to call Link: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52897394/4-23%20Annotated%20Commitments%20and%20Core%20Values%20Language%20Frozen%20Draft%20Reconciled%20with%20pp%2044%20-47%20of%20Frozen%20Draft%5B1%5D.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1429814346384&api=v2 

Edits reflect AoC and WP1 AoC language. 

- Wordsmithing should be taken offline. 

- ICANN "commits" should be changed to ICANN "shall". Revisit this terminology

ACTION ITEM - Becky to remove "commits" and identify new terminology

- Request to discuss 8.b AoC. 

--> 8 a and 8 c were brought in as additional values. According to a careful read of existing bylaws - article 18 -  covers 8b and says "shall"

--> We should explicitly  state the above. Is 8.b going to be fundamental? 

--> Why  make 18.1 fundamental? 

--> 18.1 is existing bylaws and is consistent with AoC 8.b but open question whether 18.1 needs to be flagged as fundamental. 

ACTION ITEM State why 8.b is not in the document and whether it is fundamental

- What parts of these mission and values belong in articles of incorporation? One will create legal restriction. Wording needs to be flexible enough. Legal comments should be taken into consideration as drafting occurs. 

Fundamental Bylaws 

Memo was circulated yesterday. Conclusions from Istanbul were reinforced on 31 March. We had agreed on scope, principles and have legal confirmation it is feasible. Discussion today will be about additional elements provided in memo about thresholds to propose, to approve and about the process. We should also consider Jan Scholte advice: if we set threshold too high, we might create inability to change.

- This memo says there will be a provision in bylaws that lists which will be fundamental. There may be parts of removal process that make more sense to leave in Bylaws rather than incoporating them into fundamental Bylaws. It would be easier to have all fundamental into one place but it would make Bylaws in general less difficult to use and would becloud transparency. 

- Why is the process only identified for Fundamental Bylaws changes that are identified by the Board/Staff?  What if its a proposal recommended through a community process?

--> There is a range of ways changes to Bylaws might come into existence. Wherever they emerge from they end up at Board making decision. 

- Is this process to be invoked only after Board has approved Bylaws? Do we have opportunity to reflect as part of public comment? If Board putting something out for public comment is trigger, Bylaws arise from different directions in organization and impact differently.

-->There is no intention to change current process. Paragraph a deliberately uses through usual processes. The Board would need to cast higher majority. There is no intention to limit. We are trying to interfere as little as possible with current process. We do not need to be stuck in detail on where Bylaw is coming from.

- Things work differently for numbers and names. Suggestion to add a memo that this description is considered to be applicable to numbering policy for further consideration to be made. 

 

ACTION ITEM Add a memo to address request regarding numbering resources

ACTION ITEM Clarify that do not intend to change the current process

- How will ideas be reflected into public comment period document? 

--> Everything that starts into 6.3 will be pasted in document for public comment

ACTION ITEM - Reflect numbering policy-related document in edits

ACTION ITEM - Rediscuss whether 18.1 should be listed as fundamental Bylaw 

AGREEMENT - Fundamental Bylaws will be integrated into public comment period 

Independent Review Panel Enhancements

This is one of the most important goals to achieve. There is an existing process. We need to improve process. We have reviewed input that process only takes into account process but does not go into substance. Many commenters raised question or concern that if we were to design enhanced IRP, this panel would need to look into susbtance-related issues (in additional to procedural matters). The most relevant issues are the open questions in the document: outcome (binding or not), finality (can be appealed or not), selection, composition, independence, diversity and size of panel. 

- Outcomes, finality of process, selection process for panelists, size of panel, diversity, independence issues would benefit from public input. What is the level of input we would seek from community? 

- We have received memo from legal counsel. 

- IRP process can be enforceable - it is limited by scope of parties and there are couple of exceptions. It can be enforceable for a vast number of areas. Parties have great flexibility in designing process and these rules are vital. Agreement in our context would be  in ICANN Bylaws - binding  - we could insert agreement through which they become for members and arbitrators and it does not exclude third parties. 

- Arbitration is enforceable under Federal Arbitration Act. Prevailing party could take decision to court and have a court order to obtain complaint. Court will make sure it reflects due process. Award will be made strongly enforceable and can be taken to many countries: they are broad international acceptation of these awards. 

- Two exceptions exist:

1) Powers reserved to members: if community wants to have certain power reserved to members it can be reserved to members in documents that sets up membership structure. Powers of the members is superior to Board and IRP. It is a strong accountability measure; 2) Board fiduciary: there is a limitation in the law that matters are so material to the Board that it would undermine statutory obligations and fiduciary roles to allow IRP to bind Board. IRP would have ability to issue advisory rulings. 

- If there is an arbitration between two parties - the challenge to that in court would be a very limited one. Ground to changing are essentially to  Federal courts -  would not look back to substance.

- Rule of decision is a flexible one. Whatever standard of decision, we could have rule of decision be what the group wanted. 

- Third parties could agree to process when they go into it. 

RECAP: IRP finality can either be a final solution or subject to appeals - 

- The IRP can be structured as arbitration body. 

- IRP can be binding - we won't need to recall Board to have Board take the IRP decision as binding but spilling the Board would be explored if they didn't act. 

AGREEMENT - any outcomes from IRP would not be appealable under the proper IRP process but there would always be opportunity to challenge this decision in court of law

- The standing to go to court would be determined by rules of that court. Parties to the agreement generally. 

- Understanding from Istanbul: IRP could issue limited set of decisions that could cancel decision from Board, cancel act or ask for a redo but not completely change the substance of a decision. Limited set of outcomes and last resort created balance. 

- Who decides on limits and criteria?

- IRP evaluting action or inaction against mission, core values provision would be standard against which ICANN would be measured.

--> The first instance set up as panel would have to decide whether it views itself as having jurisdiction.

- The scope of the IRP appears limited to the parties involved, while the issues raised in any given case would be either of interest to the broader community and/or could set a precedent.  So what happens if the IRP parties come to some form of agreement that is not considered acceptable to others?

--> It would not be uncommon to allow intervention from parties. 

- IRP would be suitable for determining or challenging act of ICANN staff to determine in carrying out its mission, its acting in accordance with core values etc. This is the starting point of any IRP. 

- Does the IRP have an appeal process for any outcome/decision? Clarification needed. 

-> That is not the usual approach. Parties that volunteer agree to committing themselves. If demonstrated procedural error  (IRP exceeded scope), appeal can be taken. People do create appeal mechanisms for arbitration.

AGREEMENT - Remove question 2

- Decisions are final (no appeal) 

- The panel can only be of the following types : confirm decisions, or cancel decisions, partially or totally

ACTION ITEM - Submit final wording to legal counsel to ensure it is appropriate 

- We are talking about mechanism that would be internal to ICANN - would be looking at ICANN experts. 

- We could have panelists nominated by Board and confirmed by the community. They could be proposed by international arbitration body. There would be separation of powers with respect to selection. They would be required to have expertise and skillset . We may be confusing people with "internal" language. We are looking for standing panel of arbitrators and the intention is to have them independent. 

ACTION ITEM - Replace "internal" with independent review panel 

In Istanbul, we discussed diversity and proposed the following selection process: 1) third party proposes names; 2) Board selects and  3) community group confirms. 

- There should be criteria that panels should not have engaged with ICANN for a x number of year. 

- Suggestion that requirement for them to remain Independent post term.

ACTION ITEM - Clarify independence requirements

- We first need to define size of panel before discussing diversity

- For example - panel of 7 arbitrators - 3 could be called upon to hear case and make decision. We would need 5 or 7 in all cases - could choose one etc. We are talking about small number of panelists - panelists who could be chosen to hear cases and called to form panel. 

- Difficult to reach geographical diversity 

--> It is critical hence minimum of 5 – put out question for community whether want to have extra arbitrators around. 

--> Diversity is one thing to strive for but should not be hard requirement. 

Agreement proposed standing panel 5-7 and decision between 1-3 to be put out for public comment. 

Open question: the Standing Panel members should have diversity in geographic and cultural representation. Diversity of experience will be considered in completing the composition of the Panel. We could consult community on this.

Reconsideration Process Enhancements 

The reconsideration request process is defined in Bylaws. Reforms are not really significant - they are tailored to address specifc changes. 

- We have increased amount of time a person has to file request. We have increased standard of action. We have added transparency requrirements, improvements, posting rationale within timeline, recordings/transcripts transparency, opportunity to review documentation, deadline, determine that it would go to Ombudsman first and that decision would be made by entire Board. 

- What is the rationale for timeframe? 

--> To know how long it is taking people to get decision back would be useful

- There have been discussions regarding strenghtening DIDP 

AGREEMENT - DIDP to be dealt with within WS2 

Adding core values and mission, is that sufficient to revalue substance of a decision? 

--> Any decision could be challenged by anyone. What does this mean for finality of being able to accept that ICANN decision has been taken. There was pushback on broadening of scope. This was reaction to meet both sides of that concern. 

--> We have enough examples over years where community feels bad decision was made. Would this have changed any of the outcomes? 

--> Data would be needed. 

- Suggestion to couple this with fundamental Bylaws section related public comment questions. 

AGREEMENT - The document  can be used as is basis - DIDP is deferred to WS2. Welcome additional questions from WP2. Encourage community to look at items that are encapsulated in template

SESSION CONCLUSIONS

 

We have reviewed WP2. On mission and core values: fine-tuning is needed. We have open questions on how we address 18.1 and whether we want this as fundamental bylaw. Legal implications needed. 

We are close to final agreement on fundamental Bylaws.

We have received a confirmation on legal feasibility on IRP  and we have outlined key aspects of architecture for public comment. Lot of work is needed on details but we are on the right track for the public comment process. This also applies to the reconsideration process. We will resume some of open questions tomorrow and will come out with significant progress to report to the community. 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Read legal counsel's executive summary of membership/designator models

ACTION ITEM - Insert suggestion regarding numbering resources in mission language 

ACTION ITEM - Becky to remove "commits" and identify new terminology

ACTION ITEM State why 8.b is not in the document and whether it is fundamental

ACTION ITEM Add a memo to address request regarding numbering resources

ACTION ITEM Clarify that do not intend to change the current process

- How will ideas be reflected into public comment period document? 

--> Everything that starts into 6.3 will be pasted in document for public comment

ACTION ITEM - Reflect numbering policy-related document in edits

ACTION ITEM - Rediscuss whether 18.1 should be listed as fundamental Bylaw 

AGREEMENT - Fundamental Bylaws will be integrated into public comment period 

ACTION ITEM - Submit final wording to legal counsel to ensure it is appropriate 

ACTION ITEM - Replace "internal" with independent review panel 

ACTION ITEM - Clarify independence requirements

--------------------------------------------------

Intensive Meetings Day 1 - Session 2 - 23 April

Attendees: 

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemma   (22)

Participants:  Alain Bidron, Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Chris LaHatte, Danko Jevtovic, David McAuley, Edward Morris Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, James Gannon, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Kevin Espinola, Martin Boyle, Matthew Shears, Olivier Muron, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham  (20)

Legal Councel:  Colleen Brown, Holly Gregory, Michael Clark, Miles Fuller, Stephanie Petit

Staff:  Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Jim Trengrove, Laena Rahim, Brenda Brewer

Apologies:   Eberhard Lisse

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT Session #2 23 April.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT Session #2 23 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p9qz9k2z2m1/

The audio recording is available here:   http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-1100-23apr15-en.mp3

Agenda

Session 2 – 11:00-12:00 UTC (time converter)

  1. Recap of session 1 (5’)
  2. Section 6.6.5 - Power: Recalling individual ICANN Directors (25’)
  3. Section 6.6.6 - Recall the entire Board (25’)
  4. Recap and next steps (5’)

Notes

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

Recap:  discussed the two options around the mechanisms, agreement the on the structure an composition of the mechanisms.  Also discussed the reconsideration and rejection of the budget and strategic plan and reopen discussion this later today.  An agreement on WP1 decision threshold.  
Agreement on rejection and changes of ICANN bylaws and after first reading agreed on the text as drafted.  

Section 6.6.5 - Power: Recalling individual ICANN   Directors

** Recall of individual directors selected by SO/AC, Noncom appointment members, and thresholds to be considered.  Based in WP1.

Recall of individual directors relatively straight forward.  More complex is recall of NomCom appointees.  

No agreement on the level of support needed to remove a director.  [66%] [75%]   Not to make it unattainable and also not too easy 

Also positioning thresholds to start the consideration of removing a director

Begin with SO/AC directors.  Is it WS1 issues? 

Should there be common requirements for removal of SO/AC removal, or should SO/AC set their own standards. 
Response: Consider it is a WS1 issue.  Agree that recall should not be done by the sending constituency alone.  Suggest it will be had to set common rules as the selection process are different.  

Legal counsel.  under CA laws, generally the appointer has the power to remove a director.  Approval at the very least. Under designator or member model.

Given that there us a public interest element to directors service, it should not be the only the appointing organization that is involved in removal.  But also recall that under CA law only the selector could remove. But if this not the case then only a constituency process. 

Comment: believes this was for a long time WS2.  Note that the Board can already remove an Director, so how can the community move the Board to act and remove a director when necessary.

Legal advice:  under CA law, it will be the appointer, designator or member who removes the director they appointed. Their approval at the very least to do that.  

This would be the most straightforward way.

If a director looses the confidence of the sending group then it is reasonable that the group should be able to remove that director
At the very least the removal should be the sending organization.  What is the situation under a single member model or a multi member model?
Principle: the appointing entity should ultimately be the one to say remove that person.  This is for removal without cause
Currently appointed by SO/AC, but can be removed without cause by the Board.  Need to consider this current reality.

Summary: safe mode that the removal process should be decided by the specific SO/AC.  Discussion if WS1 or WS2. With these tentative conclusions, in the pubic comment report , but we find more complicated than expected then can reconsider.  If we decide WS1 then this is the way forward suggested. Objections?  Provisional.  electors make the removal.

In favor of selector as doing the recall, but need a solution for NomCom appointees at the same time.

** Removal of NomCom appointees

More complex from legal and political considerations.

Could this be a WS2 item?

Suggest not moving to WS2 unless the SO/AC also WS2.  Suggest carrying the same approach, that a NomCom Selects, then a NomCom recalls.  And that a NomCom recall procedure has been proposed.   

To ensure a comprehensive approach use the same approach, that a NomCom Selects, then a NomCom recalls.  And a NomCom recall procedure proposed.  Suggested that this approach might be considered in public comment. [audio lost, WS1 or WS2?]

Hard for the current NomCom to also handle a removal process.  These processes are essentially not compatible, and operationally difficult.  But there could be community measure, preheat with a threshold similar to removal of the entire board or a little lower, to remove. 

Legal advice has suggested that a pre-service letter signed by directors on appointment saying they would resign under certain conditions: condition such as a super majority of the designator or members or a [community vote] calls for their resignation would be viable.  

A new removal NomCom would be hard to create, aware based on the IETF model, but IETF very different.  Proposal to use the NomCom as is when the problem arises. 

Should be WS1.  Stick to principle the appointee removes: the regular NomCom should be the body to remove.  Assume the ICANN Board also have the right to remove a director.  And will have new mechanisms to pressure the Board and NomCom to take actions, so may use that pressure to encourage them to remove a NomCom appointed director.

NomCom suggestion is similar to IETF NomCom process, but adapted to fit the ICANN model.  Suggested 2 different processes because of the two very different purposes of the processes. The removal of 1, when the other process is about finding and selecting a larger group. That the NomCom might feel they have people in their pool who would be better than the person being considered for removal, and that may influence their decision to remove. 

Sufficient support to include proposals on this issues in the PC report.  Hear traction around the new "recall NewCom" proposal would be put forward in the report as a central option, as a proposal under consideration.  And outline that other options are being considered and should be explained.  And note the consideration of the consistency with the removal of individual directors.

6.6.6 Power: Recalling the entire ICANN Board

Extensive discussion in Istanbul.  We know the power to recall the entire board is feasible. 

Consideration of the voting thresholds and parameters for this community power.  See the right hand column of community powers document. 
What's proposed is a legally viable approach.  Consideration has been to make a high threshold. This should not be a trivial matter.   

A petition of 2/3 of the SO/AC (7 in total) and at least 1 SO and 1 AC supporting the petition.  Suggesting that it should be a directed vote (para c).  Threshold of the total possible total votes available, and not having abstentions reduce this, and not having a single SO/AC from blocking the process.  Leading to threshold pointing to 75% rather than the 85% also suggested in the document.  

Could the SO/AC split their vote?  This is a decision to be made once the mechanism is known, some would allow and some do not. Perhaps the same basis as other decisions, and the same should apply for all.  An issue that requires clarification.

After a board removal there is need to ensure continuity of operations of ICANN.  This should be flagged in the report.  

A suggestion that 3/4 is too low. 4/5 (80%) recommended and ask that both thresholds are put for public comment as an option and seek community input. 

In favor of not allowing any any individual SO/AC blocking the process by itself, and 4/5 would be acceptable for this, but the voting powers ratio also needs to be considered.

Recap: 

There will be clarification on the ability to split the directed vote, and the different threshold proposals will be in the report.  

review the board sections.

* a set of proposal for WS1, based on each SO/AC being able to remove their own appointees.  

* proposal of a new NomCom process to remove NomCom appointees, noting in the report the other legally viable options and why they are less favored. 
* recall of entire board: further investigate the caretaker option as a replacement if a board is removed.  Action: Legal group to ensure consistent. Petition levels no objections.  And threshold coalescing around the 4/5 80% solution of the vote to remove. But be aware of not setting threshold so high that they make the mechanism unworkable. And noting the already high petition threshold.  Suggest revisiting the vote threshold during the 2nd reading, will be easier when we know the voting powers.

Reconvene at 19:00 UTC. To address WP2 items.

--------------------------------------------------

Intensive Meetings Day 1 - Session 1 - 23 April

Attendees: 

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Landon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meyer, Samantha Eisner, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (20)

Participants:  Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Chris LaHatte, David McAuley, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Kevin Espinola, Olivier Muron, Pedro Ivo Silva, Sabine Meyer   (15)

Legal Advisors:  Colleen Brown, Edward McNicholas, Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Josh Hofheimer, Michael Clark, Stephanie Petit, Steven Chiodini, Tyler Hilton

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Adam Peake, Berry Cobb, Hillary Jett, Laena Rahim, Brenda Brewer

Apologies:   James Gannon, Eberhard Lisse

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT Session #1 23 April.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT Session #1 23 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p3n7hhh8h48/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-23apr15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

  1. Welcome & opening remarks (10’)
    1. Reminder of working methods
  2. Section 6.6.1 - Mechanism to empower the community (60’)
  3. Section 6.6.2 - Power: reconsider/reject budget or strategy / operating plans (25’)
  4. Section 6.6.3 - Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN bylaws (20’)
  5. Recap and next steps (5)

In Summary

Section 6.6.1 - Mechanism to empower the community

AGREEMENT:

Two options : 1) ASO, ccNSO, GNSO 4 votes. ALAC, GAC, RSSAC, SSAC 2 votes.; 2) ccNSO, GNSO, ASO, At-Large, GAC: 5 votes. SSAC, RSSAC - 2 votes for public comment 

ACTION ITEM - Argue this proposal in document: notion of equal footing has to be set out. Elaborate on this section in document and capture value of discussion 

Section 6.6.2 - Power: reconsider/reject budget or strategy / operating plans  

AGREEMENT: WP1 decision threshold 

ACTION ITEM: Reopen this item on Friday, 24 April during open slot 

Section 6.6.3 - Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN bylaws 

AGREEMENT: First reading complete 

SESSION CONCLUSIONS

We have discussed methods and approach. The group had substantive discussions on composition of community mechanism, budget/strategic plan approval and reconsider/reject changes to fundamental Bylaws. 

We have discussed pros and cons of giving weights to different groups and observed that Istanbul proposal has most of traction I.E. : 5 votes for ASO, GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC - 2 seats for SSAC, RSSAC. This is not the definitive discussion. The variation of that will be provided in the report along with background for community to determine whether agree or would suggest alternatives. 

With respect to community power to reject or veto budget/strategic plan, we need to make sure the community maintains control over both items. We need to be clear what terms we will use. We received confirmation from Council that we are those determining how to use terminology and that it is not necessarily prescribed by statutory law. This discussion will be revisited once we have more clarity on community mechanisms. The group – however – supports voting threshold. 

With respect to reconsider/reject changes to ICANN Bylaws, the group is in agreement with what is in the draft report.

Next steps – we will be updating the report in light of session 1 discussion and will advise where the update can be found. We will recap when we reconvene in session 2. Tomorrow's agenda will be adjusted to capture budget/strategy discussion item.  

OTHER ACTION ITEMS: 

ACTION ITEM: Get back to CWG to determine whether comply with expectations

ACTION ITEMAdjust 24 April agenda to include budget/strategic operating plan agenda item

ACTION ITEM: Indicate where session 1-related updates to draft report can be found 

----

Notes

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

Working Methods Reminder

We will not be asking for consensus and chairing for final approval of proposals. We may describe options upon which community may provide input. We are focusing on requirements first and will discuss implementation as time permits. Our goals is to enhance ICANN accountability and to determine whether comply with CWG expectations. The CWG draft proposal is out for public comment - https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-2015-04-22-en 

ACTION ITEM: Get back to CWG to determine whether comply with expectations

Rapporteurs will introduce sessions - staff is capturing edits - as needed.

Fundamental Bylaws was missing from the frozen draft. Jordan and Becky have produced a short memo to be circulated shortly. 

We ask for susbtantive and constructive comments.

Mechanism to empower the community

Legal counsel was asked to provide a one-page overview of the four models: 1) membership; 2) variation using one single member; 3) designator; 4) as it is and achieve requirements within existing structure.  Questions relate to voting powers, composition etc.

Representation of voting: 1) equal representation between SOs and two main ACs and lesser power for RSSAC or SSAC; 2) distribution of powers and mechanisms should be same as in ICANN Board: 2 directors for ccNSO, 2 for GNSO, 2 ASO, 1 CEO, 1 ALAC. We should narrow down options to 1 - how do we distribute powers? 

Clarification in chart: suggested relative voting power, SO = 5, ALAC and GAC = 5, SSAC and RSSAC = 2

Feedback:

- Work on equal footing - Important that each component of structure is equal

- Second line is inaccurate - there is  ALAC, not ACs. "S" on ACs is incorrect. Proposal: 5 SOs and 5 ACs is acceptable - Board voting is unacceptable.

- This point should be open to public comment during discussion

- Preference for advantage to SOs - they are core organizing groups - prefer 5 to 2 ratio rather than 5 to 1

- We should be asking community 

- Important that we are talking about voting power not about seats on Board 

- Not accurate to say we would be able to mirror Board composition (NomCom). Agree with 5 to 2 ratio

- We need a model for future to come - agree SOs large ACs - equal footing and smaller 2 ACs having less. 

- 2:1 is a suitable ratio, no more than double

- NomCom seats aren't really part of structure - counting everyone equally is not right move. Designators structure runs into trouble in trying to work to out in different way than Board decision

- Support for 4 to 2 ratio proposal - Double voting to give voting to smaller ACs 

--

RECAP: traction for having different weight for different groups. Distinction between big and small groups. Traction for having 4 to 2 - If compare 4 vs. 5 - it might strengthen geographic diveristy especially for GAC and ALAC. 

Traction for 5 to 2 in chat. How do we allocate numbers? 

More support for big 5 (ASO, ccNSO, GNSO, GAC, ALAC) equally with lesser representation for SSAC - RSSAC 

---

- Suggestion to have 5 to 3

- let's note use big/small analogy

- Who objects to equally treat: SOs + ALAC + GAC?

- Suggestion to give RSSAC less weight and SSAC on equal footing

Two options : 1) ASO, ccNSO, GNSO 4 votes. ALAC, GAC, RSSAC, SSAC 2 votes.; 2) ccNSO, GNSO, ASO, At-Large, GAC: 5 votes. SSAC, RSSAC: 2 votes. - Propose that these two options be submitted to community for comment. 

- Ability of ICANN to make decisions in public interest. Contracted parties get precedence and advisors get pushed into second class position. We need to think hard about what we are saying. Support for WP1 proposal

-> In option GAC has 5 votes

- RSSAC is small 

- Need to ensure GAC will accept to have voting members in such a body. 

RECAP Substantial traction for proposal whereby the ccNSO, GNSO, ALAC, GAC, ASO would get a higher number of seats with lesser representation between SSAC and RSSAC without making a distinction between them. 5 - 2 more traction that 4 - 2 for geographic for diversity. Keep Istanbul proposal as most favored option. 

- Difficult to highlight pros/cons – concerns. 

AGREEMENT:

Two options : 1) ASO, ccNSO, GNSO 4 votes. ALAC, GAC, RSSAC, SSAC 2 votes.; 2) ccNSO, GNSO, ASO, At-Large, GAC: 5 votes. SSAC, RSSAC - 2 votes for public comment.  

ACTION ITEM - Argue this proposal in document: notion of equal footing has to be set out. Elaborate on this section in document and capture value of discussion 

Power: reconsider/reject budget or strategy / operating plans 

Need to discuss whether open set of grounds and nuances that need to be in place to set up this power. Currently have process where Board has final approval - community does not have power to reject.  We can provide community with power via designators or membership models. Each of these structures has pros and cons. Easier to implement at Bylaw level in membership model but does not mean it is easier in practice. 

It is important to consider legal advice as it will have an impact on design of mechanism. 

To discuss: 1) No objective list of criteria; 2) Plan or budget cannot be sent back again with new issues raised.

- Suggestion to have community plugged into process as budget is developped - budget approved before it is sent to Board instead or reject 

- Process of approving could work in members model, but not in designators model. Community decision can only be binding if members. For designators, contracts.

- CWG asks that we give power to veto budget and requests full transparency of IANA budget. Important that we make sure we stress whether this proposal fits CWG expectations. If it only a partial fit, provide a specific rationale. 

- Need to take into account that there might be changes to which there may be new objections - Who is going to judge whether request to reject is within grounds? 

- Community council will need more votes to reject budget again - setting higher threshold.

- There have been improvements in recent years and need to look at these during WS2. If move to member model. Board is deciding power. 

- Reconsideration is first step of any course of action. Not logical that rejected or vetoed from beginning without giving right to ICANN to reconsider. Veto should be last recourse. 1) approval/disapproval ; 2) reconsideration ; 3) veto 

- Reconsideration may have timelines that are impracticable for Board. Give Board opportunity to review. Define transparency. 

- The Board is representing community. Take into account that process to build budget is complicated. Adding layer will mean we are outside timing. Open data can be collected/published. 

- Will need to discuss who has standing. 

- Legal counsel needs to describe what is reconsideration, what is approval/disapproval, what is reconsideration/veto. 

-> these are terms the CCWG defines - parties describe them in contracts/bylaws. 

- Are we willing to accept as a whole package (recalling Board members etc)? 

- Difficicult to make decision when unclear mechanism. Suggestion to rediscuss this during open slot on 24 April.  There may be room for compromise: strong influence from community 

- 1) Force veto or require approval (membership) 2) reconsideration process. Suggestion to discuss tomorrow. Need real strong mechanisms that have teeth - not focus on recalling Board. 

- Support for WP1 threshold - agreement on these would be helpul for public comment.  

- Weight for membership model. Suggestion to have document identify membership model issues.

--

RECAP: Item open for further discussion on 24 April. Call for any objections on WP1 thresholds.

ACTION ITEM: Reopen this item on Friday, 24 April during open slot 

AGREEMENT: on WP1 decision threshold 

 

Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN bylaws 

This power can work in member and designator models. Higher threshold If sending back again.

- Bylaw has fundamental provisions and general provisions. We should clarify that not two Bylaws but one Bylaw. 

AGREEMENT: First reading complete 

---

SESSION CONCLUSIONS

We have discussed methods and approach. The group had substantive discussions on composition of community mechanism, budget/strategic plan approval and reconsider/reject changes to fundamental Bylaws. 

We have discussed pros and cons of giving weights to different groups and observed that Istanbul proposal has most of traction I.E. : 5 votes for ASO, GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC - 2 seats for SSAC, RSSAC. This is not the definitive discussion. The variation of that will be provided in the report along with background for community to determine whether agree or would suggest alternatives. 

With respect to community power to reject or veto budget/strategic plan, we need to make sure the community maintains control over both items. We need to be clear what terms we will use. We received confirmation from Council that we are those determining how to use terminology and that it is not necessarily prescribed by statutory law. This discussion will be revisited once we have more clarity on community mechanisms. The group – however – supports voting threshold. 

With respect to reconsider/reject changes to ICANN Bylaws, the group is in agreement with what is in the draft report.

Next steps – we will be updating the report in light of session 1 discussion and will advise where the update can be found. We will recap when we reconvene in session 2. Tomorrow's agenda will be adjusted to capture budget/strategy discussion item. 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM - Argue this proposal in document: notion of equal footing has to be set out. Elaborate on this section in document and capture value of discussion; Section 6.6.2 - Power: reconsider/reject budget or strategy / operating plans  

ACTION ITEM: Reopen this item on Friday, 24 April during open slot; Section 6.6.3 - Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN bylaws 

ACTION ITEM: Get back to CWG to determine whether comply with expectations 

ACTION ITEMAdjust 24 April agenda to include budget/strategic operating plan agenda item

ACTION ITEM: Indicate where session 1-related updates to draft report can be found 

ACTION ITEM: Reopen this item on Friday, 24 April during open slot; AGREEMENT: on WP1 decision threshold 

 

------------------------------------------------------

CCWG ACCT Meeting # 23 (21 April)

Attendees: 

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (21)

Participants: Alice Munyua, Andrew Harris, Avri Doris, Barrack Otieno, Chris Disspain, Chris LaHatte, David Maher, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Greg Shatan, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Holly Gregory, Ingrid Mittermaier, Jonathan Robinson, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Josh Hofheimer, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Kevin Espinola, Lise Fuhr, Mark Buell, Mark Carvell, Michael Clark, Michael Niebel, Phil Buckingham, Philip Corwin, Rosemary Fei, Rudi Daniel, Sabine Meyer, Seun Ojedeji, Steven Chiodini, TennieTam, Thomas Schneider, Tracey Hind, Tyler Hilton    (37)

Staff:  Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Hillary Jett, Jim Trengrove

Apologies:   James Gannon

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT #23 21 April.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT #23 21 April.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2h0xm31wyw/

The audio recording is available here:   http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-21apr15-en.mp3

Agenda

1. Welcome, roll-call & SoI

2. CWG CoChairs update

Documents:

€   Correspondence from CWG Chairs (15 April 2015)

€   DOC: Detail on CWG Requirements for the CCWG.docx ­ PDF: Detail on CWG Requirements for the CCWG.pdf

€   DOC : Draft- Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal.docx ­ PDF: Draft- Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal.pdf

3. Stress-Tests

# 18  - GAC consensus advice, page 73

#14 & 15 - Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Section 8b, pages 76-77

# 11 & # 17 - Board inaction, pages 61-62 DOC: CCWG-Report Draft v1.1.docx - PDF: CCWG-Report Draft v1.1.pdf

4. Timeline & agenda for intensive meeting

5. Legal advice

6. Concluding Remarks

7. A.O.B 

Notes

These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript

Roll-call

Holly Gregory phone

3. Stress-Tests

Stress tests relevant to the topics we may look at during the intense work day calls on Thurs/Friday

18, 13, 14  (17 if time allows)

26 tests in all  -  3 tests require changes to the bylaws.  Test 18, GAC advice.  The GAC could change any time how it arrives at the advice it sends to ICANN, many methods, but on receipt of the advice ICANN must treat all the same, not recognizing the significance of GAC consensus advice, and the triggers caused by such advice

The requirement is that the GAC use consensus if it wants to trigger the bylaws provisions, the newly worded test allows the GAC to define what it means by consensus (as ccNSO and GNSO do).

Note: doesn't interfere with GAC methods of decision-making.  ICANN always has to explain why it might not accept GAC advice, still the case.

GAC delivers different kinds of advice, and all GAC advice should be considered.

This is an issue that will be open for input until BA, in no way a closed issue.

Historical note: prior to this bylaw being added to the bylaws, the GAC only delivered consensus advice.

Noted that this has potential as an issue that slows the CCWG down in it's work.  And there are other tools being developed that might address any board decision that the community disagreed with.

But not about how the GAC makes decisions, but how they give advice and have their advice is considered.

The deference given to GAC advice is because it is consensus.  Anything less should not merit the same level of deference.

Action item: Kavouss and Roelof requested to put comments in writing so the group has material input for the second reading during the intense work days.

We anticipate the GAC will continue to consider this issue and to give further feedback, and there is public comment to come where may be addressed.

 

2. CWG CoChairs update

Documents:

€   Correspondence from CWG Chairs (15 April 2015)

€   DOC: Detail on CWG Requirements for the CCWG.docx ­ PDF: Detail on CWG Requirements for the CCWG.pdf

€   DOC : Draft- Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal.docx ­ PDF: Draft- Summary of Legal Structure for CWG Proposal.pdf

Update on the CWG work and where the CWG needs input from CCWG

CWG meeting just ended to review the CWG draft report.  The report is structured to be comparable with the other proposals for the ICG, to help the reconciliation process of the ICG

Attempt to publish for public comment on 21 April and a 28 day public comment period.

In its recommendations the CWG is relying on the CCWG, creating dependencies.   Expectation that the CWG proposal may be conditional on the CCWG mechanisms being put in place. Lawyers to draft those contingencies.

3 issues from the CWG:

ICANN budget.  Working with ICANN and IANA staff, but more details and transparency. Specified response:  need costs by item

CWG asks the CCWG not to deal with ccTLD redelegation and delegation

Community empowerment:  a review of the IANA functions, and a possible special review. These need to be triggered by and accountable mechanisms.

Review and redress, a fundamental bylaw to make sure that review teams' recommendations are addressed.

Q.  Can ICG consider the draft document before you receive public comment?

A. The CWG draft won't be submitted to the ICG.

CCWG response:  the issues the CWG proposes are being addressed.

The two groups have different timelines: can CWG share thoughts on the conditionality and how this effects the timelines.

Need clarity on direct and indirect costs.

The IANA function will be subject to periodic review, every 5 years after a first review, which will take place after 2 years.  And also subject to special review, which can be called for as necessary.

May say that a proposal will take place dependent on the mechanisms proposed by CCWG.  The CWG must feel it can rely on theses mechanisms.

Asking lawyers to frame the conditionality.

CWG chose not to use the term revocation.

CWG wants the IANA function review to be part of a regular calendar process. No reason why the IANA review could not be added to the CCWG AoC section and the review triggered out of calendar request also fits.

Action: to put CWG review language in the CCWG report.

CCWH noted the sense of urgency raised by the CWG

3. Stress-Tests (continued)

Stress test 14 and 15.  AoC into the bylaws.  Pages 76/77

The commitments ICANN makes in the AoC should be taken into the bylaws, so

those commitments continue, as WS1.  Changes have been made to the old AoC text to reflect the move from a bilateral to global relationship.

Global public interest.  Enhance consumer trust and choice.  The commitments to transparent budget processes, to participation, and advanced notice to facilitate stakeholder engagement in budget processes.

AoC section 8b commits ICANN to keeping its headquartered in the USA.

There is a need to reconcile the core values recommended by WP1 and WP2

Word "commit" does not appear in ICANN Bylaws --> "shall"

 

4. We are preparing for launch of public comment period - we are not presenting a consensus position.

We will use philosophy that should be focusing on requirements first - and will tackle implementation as time permits.

The simplicity test of our recommendations, particularly from the Singapore meeting.

Please at least read section 6.

The intense work period calls will be based on:

    • CWG input
    • Legal input
    • Issues as discussed on the list in the last week
    • Aware people may not join all calls, and we do not take decisions on a single call/on the first reading.
    • The agenda will explain when an issue will be discussed,  and we have give high priority to the availability of the rapporteurs to introduce their respective sections.
    • Between call try to circulate updated version. of the documents.

5. Legal advice

Documents: To be circulated prior to meeting

New documents: 

Comparative chart on the designator and member model, presenting rights of the models and how the rights can be exercised.

Legal sub-team preparing a summary document of questions asked of the legal advisors and their answers to those questions.

WP2 template received shortly before this call

Legal sub-team will hold a session at the and of day 1 (Apr 23, 20:00 - 21:59 UTC)

Note. Eberhard Lisse [.NA ccTLD Manager] Just for the record I renew my objections against the "intense work days"

What the CCWG wants to do is largely possible, but the devil is in the details.  A route for members, designators, or the looser arrangement of ICANN today

The legal advisors have asked questions to try and understand what the CCWG really wants, priorities, and what tradeoffs are acceptable.

Focuses on 6 core powers:  recall of the board, recall of individual boardmembers, ability to approve amendments to the articles or bylaws, ability to approve the fundaments bylaws, and ability to approve/reconsider the strategic plan and annual budget.

Approving changes to the bylaws, fundamental bylaws, replace/remove their board members, can be exercised by designators and members.  Needs to be articulated in the bylaws which are subject to amendment. The case of full board recall, some triggers will be required in the bylaws or contracts, but can be done.  So there are differences in implementation, but the first 4 are achievable.

Approve the strategic plan and approving the budget are more difficult.

Both are the same conditions so the note only refers to strategic plan.

Designators and members have very different powers on these two issues.

Corporate law contemplates members being able to second guess the Board.

Interfering with a board's fiduciary duty is usually hard, except for members who have this right.  Designators do not have this right.  To be given the authority to overturn a board decision would requires a contractual regime, cannot be done in the bylaws.

Noting that the CCWG is asking for reconsideration of board decisions, members again would have that right.  Concern that it may interfere with the fiduciary duties of the board so may be difficult for designators.

Cannot interfere with the Boards statutory rights to direct the company, taking too many powers undermines the stability of the corporation.

Under a members model there are viable legal mechanisms.  Much more suspect under the designator model. 

CCWG member suggestion: The right for the community to send the document back, budget or strategic plan, and that it not to be implemented while sent back.  A proposal that allows the board to still be the decisions maker. 

Lawyer response: If that is the consensus of the group, then that is helpful.  Consider as reconsideration, it is better within a fiduciary system.  Still more satisfied with a member structure, but an option to consider.

If there is ever a dispute with the Board then having right to go to court is useful.

Lawyers ask, what's needed from them this week and for the calls?

A potentially endless reconsideration and a block process to prevent anything happening while an issue is being reconsidered will be problematic under a designator model, but doable under membership.

Wrap-up.

Stress tests are reasonable clear and will be addressed in the next intensive work sessions. The CWG inter relation is clear and know our way forward,  Legal advice, made good progress in understanding the progress and different implementation models.  Our requirements are ok, but different choices for us to make.  Need all the facts on the pros and cons and then for us to make recommendations to the community on the tradeoffs we can make.  Taking into account ease of implementation, the risks the costs, and all factors.  

Action item: Kavouss and Roelof requested to put comments in writing so the group has material input for the second reading during the intense work days.

Action: to put CWG review language in the CCWG report.

------------------------------------------------------

CCWG ACCT Meeting # 22 (14 April)

Attendees: 

Members:   Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Sebastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert   (18)

Participants:   Alain Bidron, Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Brenden Kuerbis, Chris Disspain, David McAuley, Edward McNicholas, Edward Morris, Emily Chan, Finn  Petersen, Gary Campbell, Greg Colvin, Greg Shatan, Holly Gregory, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Josh Hofheimer, Kavouss Arasteh, Kevin Espinola, Konstantinos Komaitis, Michael Clark, Miles Fuller, Olivier Muron, Paul Rosenzweig, Paul Twomey, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Rafael Perez Galindo, Rosemary Fei, Sabine Meyer, Seun Ojedeji, Sharon Flanagan, Stephanie Petit, Thomas Schneider, Tyler Hilton, Vrikson Acosta, Yasuichi Kitamura   (37)

Staff:  Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Jim Trengrove, Laena Rahim, Samantha Eisner, Theresa Swinehart

Apologies:  Tijani Ben Jemaa

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4ofdnv6pje/

The audio recording is available here:   http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-14apr15-en.mp3

Agenda

1. Welcome, Roll Call & SOI

2. Legal advice presentation & discussion

• Sidley Austin and Adler & Colvin: presentation of legal advice, will include Q&A

3. Stress Test review

• Stress tests  14, 17 and 18

• Test 14  AoC change.

• Test 18  GAC consensus

https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents

4. CCWG Workplan and timeline

5. AOB

Agenda addition: # of calls and work flow

Notes

Transcripts will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52895728

 

Slides presented by the legal advisors on the CCWG call are on
the wiki:

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890082

Please see bottom of the page, ICANN CCWG - Presentation Slides.pdf
(presentation delivered on call #22 - 14 April 2015)

Notes

Have analyzed mechanisms and powers - California law has powerful tools 9

Under CA law and under contract law there are powerful tools to achieve

the mechanisms the CCWG is seeking.

Clearest path is to org an membership body made up of the same groups as

currently elect directors.

Under a designator model, also ached much of this.  But membership also

gives powers to review and approve certain board decisions.

Under corporate law the community has rights and these are based around

the concept of a corporate purpose.  The purpose is tested in the articles

and further defined in the bylaws.  And the community will have the power

to hold the Broad to that corporate purpose.  Including the word to remove

the board.   Power to amend bylaws.  Also the approval and rejection right

is also powerful (what CCWG has been calling veto rights), and these are

the powers that membership gives over the designator approach

We believe ICANN as a member org is the path to the powers the CCWG seeks.

The duty of care to the organization.  Directors should apply their own

 

judgment to what is best for the organization.  They are also required to

bring with them knowledge of the community that elected them.

 

Member structure: 

The SO/AC who elect director would become members.  The directors retain

fiduciary responsibilities, but the community has powers to greater direct

the board. 

Members: primary role to select and remove the board.  Classify the

membership.  Each class would choose internally who it wants to put on

the Board, these rights are heavily protected. There are some downsides in

that the protect members have a right to sue and can be disruptive.

Suggest in this case that the members be a incorporated entity.  Take the

SO and AC and form as an unincorporated association.  And this is a low

standard give the already exciting organization of the SO/AC.  The current

internal body would become and separate legal entity.

The stature allows for reserve powers, and the powers CCWG seeking can

largely be delivered, so long as the Board's powers overly reduced 

 

Question about the NomCom role.  Could be a member, or be eliminated and

have its work given to other new

One class of members to vote on another class of members' directed.  This

could be worked around through contracts which would allow the classes of

members to work together.

Members can unilaterally amend bylaws.  The Board can also amend bylaws,

or the right take-away.  Members can veto changes.  Can require actions to

be approved.  Members have the right to sue, if assets were not used for

the purpose for which the corporation is organized (the corporate purpose)

Member advantage:  key is to amend the bylaws, to approve or veto board

actions and the standing to sue.  However designators still viable.

Notion of a two-tier board structure.  It is not the same as the European

supervisory board.  A larger community board and executive board.  The

community board has oversight over the executive and designates authority

to the executive board.  The large community board has power to interfere

and overrule the executive board.

Need to change the bylaws to classify voting rights.  Procedure to allow

the community to amend the bylaws and adding the community provisions such

as reserve powers and independent review process.  Outside the bylaws

provisions need to provisions to allow removal rights.  Believe can be

done without radically changing the familiar structures of SO/AC

Desired powers.  Based on WP1.  Which work for members and which for

 

designators.  Both can remove individual directors.  Both can approve or

change the bylaws and protect fundamental bylaws.

To block board actions that conflict with the bylaws and mission:  members

can do this, much harder for the designators.

The powers reserved to the community under a member organized ICANN are

stronger than under designator organized

Block strategic plan or budget, members have the powers, for designators

unlikely or problematic

Principles of contract law.

Community veto power of certain board decisions.  To the extent that it

applies to specific board decisions, the member approach will have more

influence.  Rights can be reserved for members, but not for designators.

Q.  creating legal entities of the SO/AC can this open them up for legal

action.  If the GNSO makes policy recommendations, could it later be sued

for those recommendations.  Concern when he ccNSO was created that joining

a member organization would reduce the ccTLD managers individual rights.

Can we get what we want, without all the restructure.  Can the powers be

given through the powers in the bylaws 

 

A. The trade off between the member and designator structure is how much

power.  Can have all of the power, except the veto power over certain

board decisions under the designator structure. Are they needed if you

have other strong powers, such as removing the board or control over

bylaws. 

Concept of legal viability.  In the ICANN bylaws provides that groups has

the right to name people to the board.  What is legally viable, the lawyer

answer may be to provide a mechanism to force the board to do what you

want it to do.  Many of the things wanted can be put in the bylaws, but if

the board ignored it, then the question is there any way to change that.

Q.  1.  is it feasible to have an independent standing panel that would be

bind to the board, i.e. the independent review panel

2. can we call the board to action when they are not taking action

A. under the member model, a lot of flexibility in how to give veto and

approval rights.  Need greater level of research to know.

A. the concept f being able to force the board to do something, under both

there is an option to remove an individual or entire board.  But to force

the board to do something, that's where the members structure is much

stronger.  Forcing the board to do things, by amending the bylaws, or by

the members taking on an action and doing it are possible.

Yes, the NomCom can be constituted as a member, and perform its current

functions.

The only way for one class members to remove the directors appointed by

another class of member would be through some contractual relationship and

removal of the entire board.

SO/AC are created by the ICANN bylaws, and the bylaws controls what they

can and cannot do.  Is this retained as separate bodies?

Current vision for this, the unincorporated association.  Brief articles

of association, would cross reference out of the articles to refer to

existing ICANN documents, no need for governing documents as they already

exist.  So the SO.AC retain their current persona.

The designator model can be made to work.  But the clarity around roles,

is simpler under the member model.  Designator path is considered more

complicated. 

How does a govt representative fit into this structure.

Govt currently has the GAC and the selects non-voting observer to the

board.  

 

Can a govt representative be considered as a member?   They way seen under

the member or designator structure, did not see the GAC having a voting

members.  NomCom would continue to function and to provide some diversity

etc to the board. 

 

Spring board action in cases of inaction.  A mechanism to cause the board

to take action.  There coercive power exists in the selection and removal

of directors.  

Can formalize the process to call for a meeting of community

representatives and the board to express concerns.  Forcing the board to

act is hard because they are fiduciary and they have to have the right to

take decisions. 

Which can be done under the current arrangements?  Slide 20.  Currently,

it closely represents a designator model.  Desired powers:  SO/AC if

considered designators will have approval rights over certain articles or

bylaws, and can recall the whole board, cannot block board action such as

the adoption of budget or strategic plan. 

 

1. Note: TLG no longer appoints to ICANN board

2.  Nuance. Bylaws can be put in place that allows the community, using

whatever mechanisms it wishes, to veto the budget, strategic plan, etc.

The Board could ignore that veto and if they did, the next power could be

to remove the board.

3.  Problems with membership based organization and current structure of

the NomCom and particularly GAC advice and how it is treated under the

bylaws. 

 

Need to also address WP2 issues, and reviewing the IRP and how this can

fit in the recommendations will be the subject of legal sub-team call

(Wednesday, 15 April. 15:00-17:00 UTC)

Yes we can have all the options, but some trade-off for a solution that

might be easier to implement.  The requirements were not unrealistic. 

 

3. CCWG Workplan and timeline 

 

Not wishing to lose momentum, but recognizing the concerns about the high

workload and heavy document load.  The report, the first administrative

parts of the report document is largely complete.   See solid progress

from WP1 and WP2.  And feel the group has achieved a great deal. To pull

the parts together to a cohesive document

Short term work time.  Our charter in the context of the transition, and

deliver in a time frame consistent with the CWG as we are supporting some

of their proposals.  We expect it hear more from CWG on their requirements

after their 2 day intense work session of Monday/Tuesday this week. And we

need our proposal to be available for ICANN #53 and consideration by the

SO/AC,  Our Istanbul target was for public comment launch on April 21. We

want members to be able to comment on the proposals. We need assurance on

legal feasibility, and we have good progress and issues for legal group to

investigate

 Way forward.  1.  focus, and suggestions on list we might do that on the

 

CWG needs, as they respond after their intense work days.

Adjust our approach: 3 step approach:  1. this week focus on WP so they

complete proposals by the end of the week.  2. To turn around a 20-25 page

draft report over the weekend and 3 day freeze Monday-Wednesday so the

group can consider.  3. a 2 day intense work period based on the CWG

model, Thursday/ Friday next week

Revised call schedule.  Cancel the CCWG calls of Thursday Apr 16, Friday

Apr 17 (set Friday as target for the draft report to be circulated) and

cancel the additional meetings of Monday Apr 20 and Tuesday 21st.  Keep

the regular Tuesday Apr 21 CCWG 19:00 UTC. Consider CWG comments and

follow-up on legal advice).  Intensive April 23/24 work period as inspired

by the CWG process of meetings. And finalize the proposals - we are

extending the time line.

Cover the CWG requirements as a priority.

 

 No face-to-face May meeting, but June 19 in Buenos Aires. 

 

Request the spread the meeting times for the intense meetings across the

timezones (Agreed, will be amended)

Outcome of WP1. Aware WP1 may present options, and public comment can be

used to provide feedback on issues.  Legal advice affecting WP2

recommendations. 

Agreement to cancel the schedule and introduce the new meeting times

(revised for timezones)

Discussion of stress test 18 to next meeting.

Summary report, and plan for intense work days next week.

------------------------------------------------------

CCWG ACCT Meeting # 21 (7 April)

Attendees: 

Members:   Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Mathieu Weill, Olga Cavalli, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa  (19)

Participants:  Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Beran Gillen, Chris LaHatte, Chris Mulola, David McAuley, Edward McNicholas, Edward Morris, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Holly Gregory, Jonathan Zuck, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Mark Carvell, Matthew Shears, Olivier Muron, Paul Rosenzweig, Pedro Ivo Silva, Phil Buckingham, Philip Corwin, Rafael Perez Galindo, Sabine Meyer, Sarsh Kiden, Steve Chiodini, Vivek Mohan, Vrikson Acosta   (28)

Staff:  Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Marika Konings

Apologies:  Leon Sanchez, Eberhard Lisse 

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p49w6fihytl/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-07apr15-en.mp3

Agenda

1. Welcome, roll-call, statement of interest

2. Update on sprint by various groups

    • WP1 
    • WP2 
    • ST-WP 

3. Legal group update

4. Timeline 

5. Correspondence

6. CWG input

7. AOB

Notes

This call is being recorded. 

Chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards 

These high-level notes were prepared to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript.

Links

WP1 Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq

WP2 Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/p9yemfx

ST-WP Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e

Legal Subt Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4 

Notes/Action Items

1.  Welcome, roll-call, statement of interest 

Tijani Ben Jemaa on the call only.

2. Update on sprint by various groups

Work Party 1 (WP1)  

WP1 team of drafters formed following a work plan adopted April 1.  

Content further reviewed at calls on April 10 and 13 with a view to completion to allow for a 2nd reading by CCWG

reviewing community powers mechanism, stress test on GAC operating procedures and consensus advice, and recall of board members. 

Update and process.  Questions arising from drafting.  In terms of removing directors looked at removal of individual and the whole board.  Focus from Singapore was 
the whole board.  Advice from lawyers, suggests removing individual directors more consistent with other mechanisms being considered by the group.  Should this 
be WS1?

Agreement noted in the chat.  Caveat that if more complicated than anticipated then it may be delayed. 

Some objection, that is may be a more difficult thing to do.  And a question if this is necessary for the IANA transition. 

Removal of the board should be exceptional and stringent.  

Where an SO or AC appoints a director they should be able to remove them.  And WP1 is discussing options for NomCom appointees.  Following legal advice, likely 
that it should be the appointing organization that removes them.

Comment that members have argued that Director removal was not needed for the transition.  Keep WS1 light.  

Concern that removal of the whole board might introduce instability to ICANN.  

Recalled that L Strickling suggested that removal of the Board may be a useful mechanisms. And removal of the whole board was WS1.  Legal advice suggested that removal of the board may be difficult and take time, which caused removal of individual directors was reintroduced as potential WS1.  

Removal of the whole board and the potential difficulties needs to be discussed with legal advisors.

Q.  sending back a strategic plan and budget to the board: to avoid a repetition of the process, documents can only be sent back once on the same issue. Or more 
restricted, perhaps once per budget or strategic plan cycle.  And some suggestion that the Board have a requirement to take feedback into account.  Points of view on this?

If the board does not adequately pick up on these concerns on request to "re do".  Will already have an idea of community's view, and if 
sent back by the community then the mechanism to remove the board my come into play if the community view is ignored.

Are there teeth in remanding back to the board?  Or it becomes a meaningless power.  If a single opportunity per cycle to send it back, then it indicates the importance 
of the action.  

If sustained disagreement then ICANN could continue to operate under the previous year's budget spending.  No introduction of new issues in later rounds of objections. 

Continued operation on the basis of previous budget

To invoke the process so the community has sufficient power and the power has teeth

Community should voice all concerns in one submission

Community may consider to removing the board in parallel 

WP1 issues:  Mechanisms ro reject changes to ICANN bylaws.  To be an approval body for the fundamental bylaws.  Board recall, all/individual.  

Work Party 2 (WP2)

Independent review and on mission, commitments and core values.  The ombudsman process, questions being drafted and enhancements to the process.  And 
development of templates.

Community standing, and potentially affected parties: parties who would be affected if a particular action taken, but not affected in advance of any party.  Someone 
who would not be harmed until the action was taken, would those people have standing?   What is the standard of independent review.   

Under ICANN current arbitration standard, have been cases where the panel has issued a stay preventing ICANN taking an action.  Question will be sent to the group. 

Reconsideration process will be updated.  Comments welcome. 

IRP, reconsideration, mission and core values, and update of ombudsman process ready for the next call. Review of the ombudsman process will be considered as WS2.

Stress tests 

Test 18, GAC operating procedures and consensus advice, wording for potential bylaws wording for went to WP1.

Looking at addressing topics the CWG are requesting. 

Test 18.  

"With respect to GAC advice that is supported by consensus"  The condition is that the advice is consensus. A change to the bylaws that is proposed as WS1. 

Full debate on this topic during next weeks call. 

3. Legal group update

To inform the group's deliberations.  How to interaction with the legal advisors.  Sidley is the coordinating firm.  They will work based on memos drafted by the legal sub-group.  The legal advisors will work with the work parties.  Are CCWG's proposals adequate and legally viable. 

Greg Shatan coordinating legal sub-group this week. 

Formally assigning questions to the legal advisors, how is this done?

Only if through memorandum through the legal sub-team. 

Circulating on the legal sub-team list shows the issue will be on the agenda of the sb-team and consideration for forwarding to the advisors.  

4. Timeline

To the target of 21 April, our date for finalizing for public comment.  Under our current call schedule this only allows 4 hours of CCWG call for discussion of 
proposals, suggest need more time, and we want to add additional calls,:

Tuesday April 16, Friday 17, April 20 and April 21, to close the last round of discussion.  Translation time needs to be factored in.  

Action: co-chairs and staff to contact the ICANN language group about translation requirements.

New timelines documents.  F2F before BA, June 19.  To have informed conversation with SO/AC in BA.  Second PC after BA, to address outstanding items from the 
first comment.  How to get interim commitments.

First public comment period is the main comment period. Second public comment is to address issues outstanding from the first comment period. Important the first 
round be treated as most important. 

New during the second PC might be any new powers or mechanisms that are suggested in the first public. The second public comment also an opportunity to comment 
on details.  

Some of the implementation work should start as quickly as possible, and need to engage with Board and Staff. 

June 19 meeting.  ICG has been informed, they meet on 18-19 June.  Coordinating to adjust our agendas.  

ICANN will support travel for members and liaisons

5. correspondence, ICG)

6. CWG input

Correspondence from Sidley on internal accountability and hybrid models, and what the CWG --according to Sidley-- is requiring as accountability mechanisms from CCWG.  This Sidley memo has not yet been discussed by CWG. 

AOB.  

Call with GAO, Mathieu and Thomas.  Spoke as individuals as c-chairs trying to reflect the current state of the group's deliberations.  Comments in line with public 
statements.  The same questions have been asked to a range of community members.  Their report will be shared before publishing to check reflects what 
was said.  Once approved the report will be published. 

Action Items

Action: co-chairs and staff to contact the ICANN language group about translation requirements.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CCWG ACCT Meeting #18 (31 March)

The notes, recordings and transcripts for the CCWG ACCT Session #18 call on 31 March will be available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52893477

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Legal subteam call details to be posted on mailing list for anyone to join

ACTION ITEM: Raise with legal advisors (through legal sub team):

ACTION ITEM: Cochairs to specifically review notes on jurisdiction. 

ACTION ITEM: Review new version of mission statement later this week.

ACTION ITEM: WP2 to refine the proposals for reconsideration 

ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send correspondence to CWG, Board, ICG and COs (transparency) on expected timeline and engage with relevant stakeholders

ACTION ITEM - CCWG to liaise with ICG Chairs

ACTION ITEM - Engagement plan to be addressed on mailing list (in interest of time).

ACTION ITEM – Follow up on GAO matter on mailing list.

Notes

Legal Subteam Methods & Updates

León Sánchez reported that Adler & Colvin - Sidley & Austin were on the call and would speak to documents.  

Working methodologies were elaborated to coordinate work across firms/groups. León Sánchez noted that the legal sub team remains open. A call for agreement was made: does the CCWG feel comfortable with executives from legal subteam acting as liaison between firms and larger group? It was stressed that the subset of Subteam would have obligation to collect any concerns or questions from larger group and relay them to lawyers. It was commented that questions or concerns from group should be raised on main CCWG-ACCT mailing list.       

Feedback:

- All correspondence between lawyers and subgroup should be open and transparent. Agree that should not be entire team but anyone should be able to join the list on read-only model

--> This is what is in place. Anyone who wishes to join the legal subteam can join the list on read-only mode. Only executive Subteam members have posting rights.

- When posting concerns on main mailing-list, include header.

CONCLUSION: Working Methods are adopted - this issue is closed. 

Adler & Colvin

- Preliminary responses to 10 questions

Q1 relates to available legal mechanisms. We reviewed structures available to ICANN. Different models of governance. Likely will end up using membership or designators.  

  • Statutory members (entities or individuals) would elect directors and would be given bundle of rights (positions of directors can vary); 
  • Self-perpetuating Board may not be something you will use; 
  • Designators:  appoint seats but no constellation of membership rights, more a matter of drafting a structure;
  • Neither members nor designators have fiduciary duty unlike directors;
  • California law principles designates Board as ultimate authority; 
  • If members or designators are unhappy with Board performance, they can remove particular director or Board;
  • Possible to have an executive committee (highly engaged) of a larger group. The larger group would be entitled - in discharging duties -  to rely on smaller group i.e. the superBoard option. Certain authorities would have to be exercised by full group. 

- This document will be reviewed in detail on Wednesday, 1 April during legal subteam call.

- Q2 Responsibilities and liabilities (fiduciary).

- Q3 Bottom-up process for decision-making (vs. top-down) - identifying issues we see in defining bottom-up group (more empowered): what decisions it will have, who is in the group etc.

- Q4 Ways to prevent ICANN from experiencing mission drift e.g requirements for amending bylaws or articles, designators to consent. 

- Q5 Fiduciary duties: what they are and who has them. How do you reconcile representing constituency and acting in public interest?

- Q6 Board bound to accept IRP decisions e.g. contract or super board structure.

- Q7 Attorney General: unlikely unless assets are misused.

- Q8 How incorporate of AoC into bylaws.

- Q9 Interim mechanisms for caretaker Board:Californialaw is not designed to accommodate that but suggested mechanisms to take this on. A&C has reservations about spilling entire Board and advises that group reconsider.

- Q10 Suggested steps to manage litigations risks.

ACTION ITEM: Legal subteam call details to be posted on mailing list for anyone to join

Sidley & Austin

- There seems to be overlap between questions asked to A&C and S&A. 

- CCWG has a lot of tools to accomplish what it needs – how to use them needs to be determined. Through expressed provisions in articles and bylaws, there are mechanisms you could use e.g. to influence Board composition, limit ability from Board to limit changes to Bylaws, decisions around budget etc. With respect to mission creep: bylaws and articles can be used to ensure purpose is met. 

- A jurisdictional review of every place in world where you could reincorporate is premature and would be an expensive endeavor. Any state inUSAwould work.Californiais a great place to focus and cannot think of other state that would be automatically more advantageous.Switzerlandhas a structure that include membership structure we can look into, if needed. 

- Antitrust: it is an issue you have to be mindful of but no significant concerns. 

WP2 Fundamental Bylaws

CONCLUSION: There would be provisions in bylaws where any change would require affirmative approval with specific procedure requirements from community. Scope of bylaws would include: core mission of ICANN, provision creating special bylaws, independent review panel and powers to change bylaws and spill board. 

Jurisdiction

- Considering high sensitivity of topic, CoChairs not comfortable using first reading to include it in theIstanbulstatement.

- Call for agreement onIstanbulconclusions. We were not tasked to change jurisdictions of ICANN but to enhance its accountability. Question is whether ICANN's accountability would be enhanced depending on law applicable to its actions (legal input useful here). We concluded that 1) we would not be making specific recommendations regarding jurisdiction in WS1 ; 2) we would consider it in our scope as a topic when a requirement we set cannot be met or achieved withinCaliforniajurisdiction ; 3) we would rephrase question as a problem statement we would use within WS2. 

Feedback:

- A change of jurisdiction is not appropriate for WS1 but an expectation has been set by ICANN CEO about importing the AoC obligation #8 (ICANN to remain in US jurisdiction). If bylaws ought to to be amended to incorporate AoC obligations including #8, that needs to happen through CCWG work.

--> Anything that would incorporate AoC might be redundant with existing mechanisms (Bylaws, articles). Legal group could look into this.

- Is there something that we have identified that cannot be accomplished according toCalifornialaw?

- This is unnecessarily bringing negative political attention onto this work and transition. Is anyone driving this issue for it to be a must-be? Where are those questions originating 

--> There were questions raised whether Californialaw would constrain accountability. No reasons to believe there is something that cannot be achieved outsideCalifornialaw. The question whether ICANN can remain accountable to global community if remains inCaliforniais being brought up. 

--> Jurisdiction question are being assigned to lawyers and expecting answers shortly. Included initial questions in legal scoping document as well as adding input from Jorge Cancio on whether there are provisions on jurisdiction issues. 

--> Input from Pedro (Brazil), Arun

--> Jurisdiction is #1 question within French Business constituency and civil society.

-  Jurisdictional question is not necessarily centered around where the corporation is based, rather legal questions governments may have for which they could not come toUScourt. They are looking for method of raising legal issues that are not necessarily restricted to US courts but rather involving international arbitration decision-making that is adequate at government level. T ere is no appropriate mechanism for governments, international bodies to bring actions, questions, issue before appropriate court of judgement. We are conflating these two issues. Moving ICANN is not a WS1 issue but addressing questions of appropriate mechanism for others to get jurisdictional response is perhaps a question that needs to be tackled. 

--> Let's focus on facts and requirements instead of second-guessing political implications.   

--> Sovereignty concerns from governments when dealing with national courts 

--> Who are the people that can approach theUScourt? Question of which legal jurisdictions provide for ideal balance has not been answered by Sidley & Austin  - answer needed. 

- It remains to be discussed within WS1 whether AoC article 8 will be incorporated into Bylaws

CONCLUSION: Discussion whether to incorporate article 8 from AoC still generates questions. Still in agreement that our goal is to enhance ICANN's accountability and therefore the topic of jurisdiction comes into scope when a requirement we have for accountability cannot be achieved within California jurisdiction. Based on potential requirements that could not be achieved in WS1, the jurisdiction issue might be pursued within WS2.

ACTION ITEM: Raise with legal advisors (through legal sub team):

  • What extra accountability would be brought to community if AoC article 8 was incorporated;
  • Balance of jurisdiction need to further explored. 

ACTION ITEM: Co-chairs to specifically review notes on jurisdiction.  

WP1

Community Mechanism

- WP1 meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 1 April 21:00 UTC – quick drafting will be done to tighten up options that were discussed in Istanbul in regards to community mechanisms and see if can come to understanding to debate with lawyers and CCWG. 

- CONCLUSION: there was agreement that voting would be involved and transparency would be needed. Except for Board recall, votes would not be directed by SO/ACs. SO/ACs would be the basis for determining who has vote. For all powers, there was a common ground that there is no specific cause for a decision to be made. 

AoC reviews 

- Migrating 4 reviews into Bylaws with suggested improvements.

- Discussion point on ways to appoint members of Review Team (intention that community selects representatives but comments about diversity balance). 

- CONCLUSION: Increased transparency features (access to documents, annual report on accountability & transparency), potential for incorporating new reviews, when necessary

WP2 mission & Core Values 

-  A revised document was circulated to reflect input fromIstanbul(substance and format). 

- We will circulate a revised draft which compares existing Bylaws with proposed changes and incorporates input.  

ACTION ITEM: Review new version of mission statement later this week.

WP2 Independent Review

No further discussion on this item. 

CONCLUSION: IRP will be part of WS1. It is meant for ICANN to be accountable to all stakeholders with provisions against frivolous claims. There were a number of items to look at how binding it could be, subject to legal advice. 

W2 Reconsideration Process 

- Issue of standing: there was a thought to amend who has proper standing to file reconsideration request i.e. widen its scope and include any party that is impacted by ICANN's decision or inaction. 

- Standard of review: Amend standard to include reexamination of underline merits of arguments/decisions and broaden type of decisions that can be reexamined; amend when Board Governance Committee may dismiss a request; clarify that a frivolous claim amounts to a cost that would extraordinary in nature; word changes (actual to notice etc); 

- Composition: Less reliance on legal department to guide Board Governance Committee on its recommendations and recommend more Board members engagement early on in decision amend rules so that Board governance committee cannot make final decisions without fuller Board briefing and discussion of issues; call for more transparency in decision-making process. 

- Precedential value: Ability to challenge precedential value of previous decisions without reopening old cases.  

- Accessibility: Extending time deadline for filing reconsideration request to 60 days from when requestor learns decision. 

- Implementation: Follow-up process regarding implementation of the decision. 

- Process concerns: Briefing materials sent to Board should be provided, subject to confidentiality; final decisions should be issued sooner; criteria for urgent requests should be broadened.  

Feedback

What is the interaction between IRP and reconsideration request? Do we need to articulate how it connects?

--> In order to get IRP, reconsideration request would need to be filed. We should spell this out,

--> It depends on what the substantive work of the independent review, what standards of evaluation is (exhaustion of remedies). Clarification needed.  

- Are we broadening scope to go beyond (new information, facts) - would this tie into violation of Bylaws standard or other standard?

--> Standards (put in Bylaws) would be standards against which reconsideration requests could be measured to see if Bylaws were actually followed. Reconsideration request avenue would be available to rectify situation. 

- Potential paradox between extending timeline for filing and timely issuance of decisions.

ACTION ITEM: WP2 to refine the proposals for reconsideration 

- Call for agreement on whether this is WS1

CONCLUSION: Reconsideration process is WS1.

ST-WP

- Informal meeting held inIstanbulto discuss #21 (delegation/redelegation).

- Minor edits were incorporated sinceIstanbul. Weekly stress test meetings will start again next week. 

ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate ST-WP call invites.

- Edits added to # 21, added new stress.

- Veto (supermajority) is distinct from IRP and reconsideration. 

- CWG raised stress testing comments - Cheryl and Avri served as liaison between CWG and CCWG on this and will work with leads on RfP 4. CWG took on board some of our stress tests to test against some of their proposals. 

Timeline

- Target date for finalizing recommendations is April 20.

- Need to provision for 2 public comment periods.

- ccNSO Council has confirmed that endorsement of proposals would require a face-to-face ccNSO meeting so that all members could attend and discuss. 

- Berry Cobb walked the group through timeline update - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/50823981/CWG-CCWG_timeline_v0.9.6.5.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1427802208876&api=v2 

Feedback:

- Public comments before SO/AC endorsements.

- Public comments could not amend outcome unless go back to SO/ACs.

- What is standard length of public comment period? When should be deadline to publish prior to meeting? What if one of COswant changes to document delivered on October 1: how will we deal with that and what will consequences be? 

-> Objective is to get input from SO/ACs at each public comment phase. 

-> 40 days by default but shortened subject to approval by 2 global leaders. Given aggressive timeline, attempting 30 days subject to change. 

- Issuing new document between comment period andBuenos Airesis not a good idea. Suggestion: have the public comment period in April/May analyzed to prepare for discussions in Buenos Airesand prepare next draft using input received. Prepare a document in between is not practical. Depending on nature of feedback, we will be able to prepare second draft with little effort or will need F2F to re-engineer. How can CWG finalize its proposal without finalized accountability proposal? 

- Set aside face-to-Face meeting right beforeBuenos Airesto analyze comments received and finalize afterBuenos Aires.

- Need to be aware there is a significant difference between expectations set on group by some of SO/ACs, Board etc. 

ACTION ITEM - Cochairs to send correspondence to CWG, Board, ICG andCOs(transparency) on expected timeline and engage with relevant stakeholders

- CoChairs will touch on expected timeline when coordinate with CWG Cochairs. 

- Considering organizing CCWG meeting on 19 June - will liaise with ICG (conflicts with meeting)

ACTION ITEM - CCWG to liaise with ICG Chairs 

Engagement 

ACTION ITEM - Engagement plan to be addressed on mailing list (in interest of time).

AOB

ACTION ITEM – Follow up on GAO matter on mailing list.

---------------------------------------------------------


Face to Face meeting of the CCWG on Accountability in Istanbul

Summary  prepared by Finn Petersen from Denmark


On 24-25 March the CCWG Accountability had a face-to-face meeting inIstanbul.

The work on accountability has been very intensive lately and the structures as well as the elements of the Draft Proposal on Enhancing ICANN Accountability have progressed significantly during the meeting.

The most important elements in the draft proposal are:

1) A new mission statement and core values for ICANN

2) A new independent review mechanism

3) New powers to the community to control key Board decisions, including power to dismiss the Board

4) Incorporation of the AOC review into ICANN’s Bylaws

1.

The new mission statement and core values have been worked out from the existing relevant paragraphs in ICANN's Bylaws and core values from the AOC. I attach the latest version presented inIstanbul(do not include the changes made at the meeting). As the mission statement and these values are important for how ICANN's activities and behavior will be framed in the future you are recommended to look into them.

2.

The draft new IRP mechanism is based upon the existing structure, but has been improved in order to ensure that the appeal mechanism will be faster, more affordable and binding.

3.

The draft proposal contains several elements to empower the community. There is suggested a new power to be incorporated into ICANN's Bylaws that will enable the ICANN community to block ICANN's Board from adopting a strategic plan and a budget, a power to block changes to ICANN's Bylaws and power to the community - as a last resort - to remove the ICANN Board of Directors. There will also be a so-called Golden Bylaw with special provisions and procedures if e.g. the mission statement and core values as well as the new IRP mechanism are going to be changed.

Moreover, a new structure composed of ICANN's SO's and AC's will be created. The voting balance between the different SO's and AC's are still under consideration. As Governments we have to decide whether we want to participate as a voting member or continue to be an  advisory body. If we decide to become a voting member, which I at the moment doubt we should, the GAC itself would have to change as it will no longer solely be an advisory body. Therefore, please consider this issue.

4.

The four reviews from the AOC will be incorporated into ICANN's Bylaws with the possibility to sunset review teams and/or launch new review teams in order to make the reviews adaptable to the future needs of the organization. It is further suggested that the community would appoint the members of the reviews as well as to implement enhanced obligations on ICANN to implement recommendations from the review teams. Finally, the review teams should have access to ICANN documents, which is not the case today.

Furthermore, a number of stress tests have been developed, especially number 18 (Redelegation of ccTLD’s's) and 21 (ICANN has to duly take into account GAC consensus advice) are of great interest to Governments. The stress tests were only discussedIstanbulin an informal breakfast meeting.

At the moment, the suggested Stress Test 18 does not take GAC’s principles on redelegation of ccTLD's into account. Finalizing this stress test will await CWG's proposal on the IANA transition. Stress Test 21 and the related proposed changes to the bylaws do not prevent the GAC from changing in the future its Operating Principle 47 to use majority voting for formal GAC advice but ICANN’s Bylaws would require due deference only to advice that had GAC consensus. This bylaw change has been suggested to prevent capture.

The question of jurisdiction is going to be looked into in Work Stream 2 (Accountability mechanisms, which do not have to be in place for the IANA transition to take place) any limitations for current jurisdiction (California Law) should be prioritized in Work Stream 1.

According to the initial timeline, it was anticipated to start the consultation on the Draft Proposal for Enhanced Accountability on 6 April. However, this will not be possible due to the recent (late) conclusion of the selection of the firm to provide legal advice to the CCWG and the legal advice being necessary before publishing the draft proposal for public comment. The consultation is expected to be delayed a couple of weeks. A new timeline will be published in a few days and I will forward the revised timeline to you.

The CCWG Accountability has chosen to use the law firm Sidley Austin, which is the firm already elected by the CWG Naming. The scope of work is defined as follows:

• Adler & Colvin will be the primary source of advice on corporate governance law andCalifornianot-for-profit law.

• Sidley & Austin will be addressing international law and jurisdiction issues and any additional topic, as deemed appropriate.

The Draft Proposal will be discussed further in the coming weeks.

Statement from the CCWG Co-Chairs released after the Istanbulmeeting it publish on this link: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-25-en (also detailed below in this wiki)

--------------------------------------------------------

Additional comments from the F2F meeting in Istanbul

by Olga Cavalli, Argentina


About Statement of Mission, Commitments and Core Values:

(document attached again, still in progress)

Please note Number 11 which is related with public policy recommendations from the government.

Present text:

11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations.

Proposed text:

11. Duly consider governmental public policy recommendations that are consistent with this Statement of Mission, Commitments and Core Values and the Bylaws

Difference in the new proposed text: GAC advice should be consistent with the mission, commitments and core values.

Question: Who decides what is consistent or what is not consistent?

 

About Mechanisms: Community Council 

(final name to be defined)

 

This Community Coundil will have representation of SOs and ACs.

All agreed that the GAC must be involved, then the question is if the GAC will make a voting contribution to the Community Council or its involvement would be as an advisor committee.

Other AC and SO vote and this does not apply to the GAC.

This should be considered by the GAC.

Legal advice is needed to evaluate the Community Council or other mechanism to be established.

About Jurisdiction:

Some questions that were discussed during the meeting:

- What does Jurisdiction mean?

  • Place where the organization has its headquarters.
  • governing law for contracts.
  • laws that will be applicable to the day to day administration of the organization
  • having standing to sue or to be used in a certain territory.
  • Tax law, corporate law, that might be applicable to the organization.

- ICANN's jurisdiction should change for the sake of changing jurisdiction?

- Where are the limitations of today's jurisdiction?

- Does it satisfy accountability needs?

- If Jurisdiction is changed: Will the US Congress support it?

- DoesCalifornialaw limits enhancement of ICANN's accountability to a level that is unacceptable?

- Or is there another jurisdiction that would increase ICANN's accountability to the level that we want?

It was noted that an expectation was set by ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade during his testimony before the Senate Committee on February 25 where he told that he expected the Affirmation of Commitments obligations, including the jurisdictional issue, will be incorporated into the bylaws coming out of this process.

---------------------------------------------------------

CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs Statement

After the F2F meeting in Istanbul

 

Thomas Rickert, León Sánchez, Mathieu Weill

Members and participants of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) met inIstanbul,Turkey, on 23-24 March 2015.

The meeting was attended in-person by 42 members and participants. A number of participants and observers joined the meeting remotely using the virtual meeting room. Three Advisors also participated.

Guided by the four basic building blocks identified at ICANN 52 inSingapore, the group further discussed and refined accountability mechanisms that need to be either implemented or, at least, committed to before the transition of the IANA stewardship can take place.

The meeting made progress on three main areas:

  • Enhancing ICANN'sMissionand Core Values;
  • Strengthening the existing independent review process;
  • Mechanisms for community empowerment.

Specifically, the group discussed changes that should be made to the Missionand Core Values in ICANN's Bylaws. For example, the group discussed how key provisions of the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) could be reflected into the Bylaws.

Additionally, the group worked on strengthening the existing independent review process suggesting improvements to its accessibility and affordability, and discussed process design including establishment of a standing panel with binding outcomes and panel composition (diversity etc.). The IRP panel decisions would be guided by ICANN'sMissionand Core Values.

With regards to mechanisms for community empowerment, the group identified powers and associated mechanisms including the ability to:

  • recall the ICANN Board of Directors;
  • approve or prevent changes to the ICANN Bylaws,Missionand Core Values;
  • reject Board decisions on Strategic Plan and budget, where the Board has failed to appropriately consider community input.

The CCWG-Accountability supported the concept of a Fundamental Bylaw that would provide additional robustness to key provisions. The Fundamental Bylaw would apply to:

  • the mission;
  • the independent review process;
  • the power to veto Bylaw changes;
  • new community powers such as recall of the Board and the right of the community to veto certain Board actions.

Changes to the Fundamental Bylaws would require high standards for approval by the community.

The notion of an empowered community involved discussion of community representation, i.e. who constitutes the community. The CCWG-Accountability is also aware that to wield these new powers, the community, however it is constituted, must itself meet high standards of accountability. ICANN's accountability would also be enhanced by ensuring its operations and processes are more globally inclusive.

The group has engaged two law firms to provide independent legal advice and confirm feasibility of the suggested frameworks. The firms are Adler & Colvin and Sidley & Austin.

As work progresses, all recommendations will be subject to the stress tests against contingencies already identified. The stress test methodology has been successfully tested against the draft accountability mechanisms.

The CCWG-Accountability is confident that their proposed mechanisms will satisfy the needs of the CWG-Stewardship1 as they look to stronger accountability protections. The CCWG-Accountability and CWG-Stewardship Co-Chairs met to update and fully brief each other on the progress made so far. They outlined key areas of accountability that the CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs considered are most relevant for the current and ongoing work of the CWG-Stewardship. The CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs will brief the CWG-Stewardship in the opening part of their face-to-face meeting on Thursday, 26 March.

Next Steps:

The CCWG-Accountability will continue refining its recommendations. The community is expected to provide feedback during a public comment period to be held before ICANN 53, Buenos Aires meeting. The results of the public comment period will inform further deliberations during that meeting.

The group is developing an engagement plan to ensure its proposals are widely known and understood, and to encourage comprehensive response to proposals during the public comment period.

The CCWG-Accountability Co-Chairs recognize the outstanding volunteer work that has produced these substantive proposals in a very short period of time. The community's effort has been exceptional.

About the CCWG-Accountability

The CCWG-Accountability was established to ensure that ICANN's accountability and transparency commitments to the global Internet community are maintained and enhanced in the absence of the historical relationship with the U.S. Government.

The group has divided its work into two work streams (WS):

  • WS1 is focused on identifying mechanisms enhancing ICANN accountability that must be in place or committed to within the timeframe of the IANA Stewardship Transition;
  • WS2 is focused on addressing accountability topics for which a timeline for developing solutions and full implementation may extend beyond the IANA Stewardship Transition.

The CCWG-Accountability consists of 177 people, organized as 26 members, appointed by and accountable to chartering organizations, 151 participants, who participate as individuals, and 46 mailing list observers. The group also includes one ICANN Board liaison, one ICANN staff representative, and one former ATRT member who serves as a liaison. In addition, there are 4 ICG members who participate in the CCWG-Accountability, including two who serve as liaisons between the two groups.

Seven Advisors have also been appointed to contribute research and advice, and to bring perspectives on global best practices to enrich the CCWG-Accountability discussion.

The CCWG-Accountability is an open group: anyone interested in the work of the CCWG-Accountability, can join as a participant or observers. Participants or observers may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group or organization not represented in the CCWG-Accountability or currently active withinICANN, or self-appointed.

For more information on the CCWG-Accountability or to view meeting archives and draft documents, please refer to their dedicated wiki.

A video interview with CCWG-Accountability Co-Chair Thomas Rickert can be seen here.


1 Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions

 

---------------------------------------------------------


Preparation for the Istanbul meeting (23-24 March 2015)

Reading List Map


The reading list map can also be found on your dedicated IST wiki page at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890276

Work Party 1 – Community Empowerment

 

WP 1 Report for CCWG Istanbul: DOC - PDF

 

POWERS

WP-1A Community approves Bylaws change

DOC - PDF

WP-1B Community challenges actions against Bylaws

DOC - PDF

WP-1C Community approves Budget/Strat Plan

DOC - PDF

WP1-2A AOC merged into Bylaws

DOC - PDF

WP1-2A,B,C,D,E

AOC merged into Bylaws

Community adds/sunsets AOC Reviews

Community approves AOC Review Team members

Community requires AOC Recommendation implementation

AOC review teams have access to all ICANN internal documents

DOC - PDF

WP1-3A Community can require implementation of all Accountability WG Work Stream 2 accountability improvements

DOC - PDF

WP1-4A Defining GAC Consensus for ICANN Board purposes

DOC - PDF

WP1-5B1 Prevent ICANN Imposing Obligations – Accountability Contract

DOC - PDF

WP1-5B2 Prevent ICANN Imposing Obligations – Golden Bylaw

DOC - PDF

WP1-7A Community can remove ICANN Director/s

V2 DOC - PDF

V3.1 DOC - PDF

                                                                                      MECHANISMS

WP1 Mechanisms Comparison Table

DOC - PDF

WP1-A Existing SO/AC structures

DOC - PDF

WP1-B Permanent CCWG

DOC - PDF

WP1-C Statutory Delegates

DOC - PDF

WP1-D Statutory Members

DOC - PDF

WP1-E Supervisory Board

DOC - PDF

WP1-F Community Veto

DOC - PDF

WP1-G - Community Council

DOC - PDF

 

 

 

Work Party 2 – Review & Redress

 

Mission Statement & Core Values Compact: DOC - PDF

Independent Review – DOC - PDF

 

---

Stress Test Work Party  

 

Applying Stress tests: DOC - PDF

 

---

Legal Subteam

 

Legal scoping: DOC - PDF

 

---

Project Management

 

Timeline: PDF

Work Status: Google link

Project Plan: PDF

 

---

Methodology

 

Mindmap: PDF

Criteria for comparison of accountability mechanisms: XLSX - PDF

 

---

Other

 

Charter: Webpage

Problem Statement & Definitions: DOC - PDF

Summaries of mailing-lists discussions: webpage

Mailing-List Archives: webpage

---------------------------------------------------------

 

CCWG ACCT Meeting #17 (17 March)

Attendees: 

Members:  Alan Greenberg, Alice Munyua, Becky Burr, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, Izumi Okutani, James Bladel, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Pär Brumark, Robin Gross, Roelof Meijer, Samantha Eisner, Sébastien Bachollet, Steve DelBianco, Suzanne Radell, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemaa   (20)

Participants:  Alain Bidron, Andrew Bennett, Avri Doria, Barrack Otieno, Beran Gillen, Bob Takacs, David Maher, David McAuley, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Keith Drazek, Mark Carvell, Markus Kummer, Matthew Shears, Oliver Muron, Pedro Ivo Silva, Philip Corwin, Phil Buckingham, Rafael Perez Galindo, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben   (23)

Staff:  Adam Peake, Alice Jansen, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Chris LaHatte, Laena Rahim, Markia Konings 

Apologies:  

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT #17 17 March.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT #17 17 March.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p4t19cs5h04/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/icann-ccwg-acct-17mar15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

1. Welcome, roll-call & SoI 

2. Next stop: Istanbul

    • Tentative agenda, Xplane
    • Criteria to compare options
    • Expectations to have documents ready by March 20

3. Activity reports 

    • WP 1
    • WP 2
    • ST-WP
    • Legal Subteam 

4. Outstanding issues to be dealt with in Istanbul  

5. Public comment approach

6. A.O.B 

7. Closing remarks

Notes

All participants in the adobe connect room

Next stop: Istanbul

Link to information about the Istanbul 

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52890276

WP1 and WP2 will hold informal meetings on Sunday afternoon:

    • WP1: 16:00 - 17:30
    • WP2: 17:30 - 19:00 
    • followed by cocktails 

XPLANE will support the F2F meeting.

Following discussion in WP1 about how we would reach decisions when comparing various options for the accountability mechanisms we are working on, document "comparing accountability 
mechanisms" sent to the CCWG list.  Purpose is to propose options, based on work we have been doing to date rather than introducing new ideas at this stage.

The spreadsheet is not proposed as a full tool to compare the qualities of one mechanisms against another.  If certain parameters are present for some mechanisms but not for other then will help us in the substance of discussions

Activity reports 

WP1 report Jordan Carter 

  • Last WP1 call consider how to write mechanisms on the the bylaws,  the community veto and the updated template.  And the new mechanism of the community council.
  • Question of jurisdiction keeps coming up, need to agree how to handle this or it may become a problem
  • The existing SO/AC model is based on decisions based on their own democratic processes and own thresholds and aggregated across the collective SO/ACs.  Other suggestion is for the 
    creation of a community council mandated by the SO/AC, with either directed or independent vote.  And members discuss issues.  
  • Questions being asked if each SO/AC should have the same weight in the decisions making process.
  • There are difference between mandated and non-mandated decisions.
  • with WP1 powers when talking about veto etc are very far from the usual policy making decisions of ICANN.  There should be high thresholds.  
  • Currently working on a tool to test how voting behavior of different groups will impact the outcome. Some mechanisms may have a lower voting threshold than others.  

 

WP2 Becky Burr

  • Core deliverables will be on the mission statement, community values.  Will be prepared for March 20 and distribution.
  • Good discussion of independent review and expect good outcomes
  • work stream on ombudsman and reconsideration have had a lower start and will be the focus of informal meeting on Sunday in Istanbul 
  • The constitution" document, and about to what extent, if any, ICANN's mission statement should be allowed, and the evolution of the mission should be a very high bar.  Is there a need for 
  • a constitutional court in addition to an independent review.   Group seems to be favoring and combination.  
  • Discussion about access ti the  independent review and constitutional court  are accessible both from point of view of standing and cost (looser pays, frivolous claim)
  • Mission statement core values: the group considers it important to ensure that there is no mission creep.   Should there be a specific statement outlining what ICANN is trying to achieve.  
    A vision statement might be useful, perhaps noting the security, stability, interoperability and resiliency of the Internet through coordinating the unique among and numbering  system.  

 

Stress Test Working Party 

  • The test regarding GAC consensus advice and requirements of the bylaws for the Board to act in response.  Thomas Schneider's letter in response to co-chair's communication about the test.   
  • All 25 stress tests have been drafted against the current mechanisms were have designed.  
  • Tests 1 and 2, combined:
  • Change if delegation authority for IANA rootzone ceases to function. This is a test is an attempt to cover the needs of the CWG.  The current contract held by NTIA could be revoked by 
    NTIA, and this provides leverage.  
  • Test 11.  Compromise of credentials.  Regarding security breaches and ICANN's standards for security training, follow-through on required training.   To be able to enforce implementation of adopted security standards.  Not directly related to the transition.  

Legal sub-team

  • Close to reaching agreement, had calls with a number of law firms.  Call tomorrow (18 March) to finalize agreement.  And hope to have representation from the external legal advisors
    present in Istanbul.  Further refinement of the scoping document is required.
  • Will the legal firm be able to answer questions about international jurisdiction matters, or is this a matter for the CCWG expert advisors?
  • Might ask the experts while in Istanbul why we are talk about jurisdiction.  CCWG colleagues might agree on  what the requirement for jurisdiction debate are.

 

Outstanding issues to be dealt with in Istanbul   

ACTION ITEM: Raise outstanding issues upfront for meeting  to be productive. 

Public comment approach

structure of public comment, using question format and allowing for free form replies.  Desire is to structure the public comment to the  format of WP1 WP2 and stress tests.  Asking questions 
about the approach, do you support or not. With a free form text field to allow comment to explain their answers.  

Anticipate large number of comments.  

Concern noted about the time line and that we will have a final proposal for WS1 by April 6.  We are proposing significant changes to ICANN's organizational structure. 
Need to receive legal advice.  
And then go to our communities for their views, and then may be ready for public comment.  The timeline will be an important discussion point for Istanbul.

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Raise outstanding issues upfront for meeting  to be productive. 

---------------------------------------------------------

CCWG ACCT Meeting #16 (10 March)

Attendees: 

Members:   Alice Munyua, Athina Fragkouli, Becky Burr, Bruce Tonkin, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Eberhard Lisse, Fiona Asonga, Izumi Okutani, Jordan Carter, Jorge Villa, Julia Wolman, Leon Sanchez, Mathieu Weill, Par Brumark, Robin Gross, Samantha Eisner, Steve DelBianco, Sebastien Bachollet, Thomas Rickert, Tijani Ben Jemma   (20)

Participants:  Avri Doria, Alain Bidron, Barrack Otieno, Bob Takacs, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Greg Shatan, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Markus Kummer, Olivier Muron, Pedro da Silva, Sabine Meyer, Yasuichi Kitamura, Vrikson Acosta   (15)

Staff:  Alice Jansen, Brenda Brewer, Chris LaHatte, Laena Rahim

Apologies:  Alan Greenberg, David Maher, Martin Boyle, Suzanne Radell, Olga Cavalli, Berry Cobb (staff)

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**


Transcript

Transcript CCWG ACCT #16 10 MARCH.doc

Transcript CCWG ACCT #16 10 MARCH.pdf

Recording

The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p6b9ogdh454/

The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/icann-ccwg-acct-10mar15-en.mp3

Proposed Agenda

1. Welcome, roll-call & SoI 
2. Activity reports 
WP 1
WP 2
ST-WP
Legal Subteam 
3. Timeline (sharing expectations from Istanbul) 
4. Structure of public comment report
5. A.O.B 
5. Concluding remarks

Links:

WP1 Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq
WP2 Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/p9yemfx
ST-WP Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e
Legal Subt Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4
Timeline - http://tinyurl.com/kd2u3b7

WP1

Jordan invited the Group to review the current work status document - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/WP1-WorkStatus-CCWG-ACCT%202015-03-10.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425966317000&api=v2 and reported that: 1) the WP is making progress on elements; 2) the WP will discuss outstanding items and how it will arrive at consensus on WP1 call on Thursday; 3) the WP will have a consensus call agreement meeting next week and circulate documents for consideration in Istanbul. 

WP1-4A Defining GAC consensus for ICANN 

Mathieu informed the Group that Cochairs have engaged with Thomas Schneider to further discuss the question raised during the stress test analysis about decision making rules for GAC advice – see https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52891502 and are in the process of finding a time slot with Thomas to provide more context and have an initial discussion about how to proceed. 

ACTION ITEM: Mathieu to report back to the CCWG on conversation with Thomas Schneider in due course.

Work Status

Jordan walked the CCWG through the Work Status spreadsheet -  https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/WP1-WorkStatus-CCWG-ACCT%202015-03-10.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425966317000&api=v2 . Orange items will be discussed WP1 meeting #4. WP2 confirmed they will not be conducting work on last table. 

ACTION ITEM: Jordan to touch base with Keith Drazek on WP1-5B.

AoC Reviews

Steve del Bianco walked the CCWG through Competition, Consumer Trust and effectiveness of WHOIS Policy reviews -https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/Draft%201-%20AoC%20Accountability%20Mechanisms%20%5BSteve%20v5%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425509039000&api=v2 - and informed the Group that text is mainly from AoC. Amendments include Review Team designated by Community (SO/AC/SG), independent advice, access to relevant documents at ICANN and non-disclosure, "consider approval and begin implementation within 6 months of receipt" language. It was noted that WHOIS review due to start in 2015 and that EWG work should be considered along with inherent implementation timeline this could imply. 

Feedback on CCT-RT 

- Start of New gTLDs was subject to heated debate at GAC: it should also take into account lessons learned, difficulties. 

--> Feedback needed on Kavouss Arasteh's suggestion that subsequent rounds of new gTLDs should not be opened until the recommendations of the previous review required by this section has been implemented.

--> Wouldn't we be interfering with other process? We should not use accountability work to force decision on ICANN about nature of rounds system and whether rounds or not can happen until review done.   

--> Writing is based on assumption that there will be successive rounds. There might an option where no rounds but an ongoing flow of applications. This might create inconsistencies in the future. It is important to have a regular review but no need to have it connected to rounds. 

--> We are trying to perpetuate Aoc into Bylaws. In terms of drafting techniques, it would be inconsistent to make something work for years to come and highlight one specific event in there. The idea is to have outcome of reviews needs to be analyzed by Board and taken into consideration for next steps applicable to all sorts of reviews. This reminder could be placed in section on periodic reviews. 

--> Word this to not predetermine future rounds and scheduling and leave that up to Committees: i.e. set up periodic reviews as instructed and indicate requirements arising out of the upcoming review. -This group enforces accountability - no pre-staging of what responses need be. 

---> Jordan's group will analyze discussion while proceeding with work. No request to embed this specific point in WS1. If objections, speak up. Let's keep it on radar for discussions and put it in bucket for WS2. 

- All the elements are not directly related to transition. This is overall accountability. The draft should go to full GAC for in-depth discussion. 

- Let's not spend too much work on drafting of implementation specifics – legal experts will need to review. 

- It is a pity we are losing two-step selection process because it is useful for balance. Balanced composition should be key criteria in selection process. 

ACTION ITEM: Obtain further feedback from the Group during the week. 

Feedback on WHOIS

- Will the WHOIS work stay? It may be worth expanding discussion in light of work on New gTLD Directory Services.  

- Could just amend the "title" of the review : effectiveness of policies to meet legitimate needs of LEA, promote consumer trust while taking into account privacy.

ACTION ITEM: Obtain further feedback from the Group during the week. 

 

WP2

Becky Burr reported that: 1) WP2 sub teams have kicked off; 2) Independent review sub team is particularly active; 3) Lively discussions in the request for reconsideration sub team; 4) WP2 is planning to have a completed draft of compact mission on 20 March for in-detail discussion at Istanbul meeting as well as reports and updates from various groups. Independent Review may be further along than the others by that point. Becky has circulated resources on international ombudsman association and hopes to kick off that discussion shortly. 

Feedback:

- Is the issue of binding/non-binding of the Review Committee concluded or being discussed?

--> It is ongoing. Legal input will be needed on this. There seems to be strong support for making it binding although there are questions about what that means: e.g. binding in what way: sending decisions back to Board? Important questions that will need to be addressed in context of legal advice we will receive. 

- What is the legal nature of this compact mission? Will it be binding, actionable?

--> The goal is to establish a standard for what kinds of actions are within ICANN's remit. Questions that would be relevant in any of the review/redress mechanism are: is the action taken within ICANN's mission statement; in carrying out its mission statement, has ICANN conducted its activities in accordance with its commitments to the community to respect multistakeholder model, to comply with transparency standards, to avoid discriminatory treatment, to reflect diversity etc. It is a standard against which ICANN's behavior would be measured procedurally. It is the nature of what people have called a Golden Bylaw meaning that some parts of it could not be changed without certain safeguards occurring: e.g. threshold for Board, community approval. How it will be binding and enforced is a question for the group itself. The notion that ICANN could expand its mission statement is something people are skeptical about. 

--> This goes back to 4 accountability components discussed in Singapore. This compact could be the test for spilling Board or other actions with sufficient grounds if violation of compact. Reminder from Bruce setting out mission in articles of incorporation and Bylaws: has that been addressed?

--> It has been forwarded to compact mission sub team and needs to be factored into the process. 

- Compact mission are fundamental guiding principles/constitutional.

- If a review is made binding, what would happen to an appeal to that decision? 

--> There is nothing that would necessarily change GAC advice: we will need to consider what opportunity GAC would have to respond if someone appealed ICANN's deference to GAC advice on the grounds that the GAC advice is violated. The general notion in the straw man proposal is that ICANN would reconsider GAC advice to the extent that that advice was consistent with compact. 

- If constitutional, need to be careful if amend anything as this may have considerable impact. How did you pick items you are suggesting now in compact mission, what are the inputs you are using? This will be an important aspect to inform SO/ACs. Need to focus on aspects that generate consensus. 

--> A significant part of document already exists in the mission statement and core values in the current Bylaws. Also reflected are: 1) a provision in section 3 of Bylaws; 2) a significant number of comments about public interest obligations; 3) comments about institutional excellence, competence and operational excellence. The WP2 is trying to capture disussions that have come up starting with Bylaws, general principles and using inventory of suggestions. Various suggestions about giving ICANN a human rights mission was not included: ICANN is not in the business of content and giving ICANN a promotion of human rights was problematic. 

ACTION ITEM: Review the WP2 document https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/Work%20Item%20List%20and%20Principles%20WP2%20PDF.pdf?version=4&modificationDate=1425965515000&api=v2  and socialize with your respective groups before the next call to ensure the Group is fully aligned with WP2 suggestions. 

- WP1 is also discussing principles. WP1 and WP2 should synchronize so that it is clear where the discussion about principles is taking place.

ACTION ITEM: WP1 and WP2 rapporteurs to synchronize to avoid duplication and clarify where the principles discussion is taking place.

- Is there still a need for a position like the Ombudsman if community powers? And if so, what of conflicts etc.

--> This should be revisited in light of big picture to determine whether it makes sense. The question will be answered in course of discussion, we should not prejudge if going in. 

ST-WP

All Stress Tests templates are filled in for consideration.

ACTION ITEM: CCWG to review ST-WP work - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52232556/Applying%20Stress%20Tests%20%5BDraft%20v7%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425965091000&api=v2 

Caveat that nothing can be finalized until WP1 and WP2 work is completed. The Group is welcome to join the ST-WP call on Wednesday, 11 March at 11:00 UTC: the WP intends to go through all stress tests with objective of having documentation reading for CCWG discussion. The WP also intends to cross-check with stress tests proposed by CWG. 

Steve del Bianco walked through stress tests 3 (litigation arising from existing public policy e.g. Anti-Trust), 4 (New regulations or legislation) and 20 (Court order is issued to block ICANN's delegation of a new TLD, because of a complaint by existing TLD operators or other aggrieved parties). 

Feedback:

- Are we dealing with people who are present and voting?

--> Supermajority 3/4 - 4/5 will a necessary precision. For time being, not defined. It is not based on quorum. Working towards SO/AC/SG bodies that will be given sufficient time to respond on a decision that was brought forth to veto a management move: SO/Acs will have to review that and indicate support or non-support. This would required a documented process. 

- Current draft indicates there is a potential for ICANN community to require ICANN to take action considered unlawful in certain legislations. If certain legislation is in place and if ICANN were to violate laws in place, there could be lawsuits. How is that addressed in stress-tests? 

--> Community under a very high standard of supermajority could believe that ICANN should not fear implementing what was identified by a bottom-up process under pressure of law suits etc. Community could instruct ICANN what legal counsel believes is not in best interest of corporation. That possibility could occur in the future. 

--> If US congress comes up with legislation contrary to a certain ICANN policy, are you arguing that community should have power to force ICANN to act contrary to legislation?

--> These are general community empowerment steps currently under discussion. Unaware of any effort to constrain or restrict the community's power just because one nation might disagree with implementation. It is possible that country could adopt measures that would violate notion of single root. We are going to have pressures. ICANN Board and management will do their best for corporation and community but community should be empowered to tip the balance towards community's will. 

--> This key aspect would need to be underlined. It is a risk. Is the underlying suggestion that we should accept the risk and live with it?

--> To increase capability of giving community the accountability and empowerment on how to answer that risk. Not all stress tests are solvable. It is about giving the community the voice it needs to decides how to react.  

--> Enable community to have final word.

--> There is a series of mechanisms that are suggested. Thresholds for disagreeing with and moving Board sit at different levels. Consider whole system in mind. There is a broad array of powers for community we are proposing here. 

--> Does it conflict with Articles of Incorporation? 

--> One scenario is where Board takes action presumably because law is created somewhere and informed by GAC representative. Legal counsel advice would be given on whether or not ICANN would fall under that law but government could take action under law enforcement. There is a difference between taking Board action on advice received from a government and taking Board action that is in breach of policy. Board approves community policies – one of mechanisms for community is to create policies around that law. Consider IRP and request for reconsideration. 

--> It does not change the conclusion. We are improving mechanisms to make them accessible to community at large. 

--> International law being subordinated to decision is outside mandate. 

--> There can be contradictions between national legal laws. It is outside mandate but should be considered as part of stress testing. It is not clear we should know what answer is but we should be aware of potential issue before going out for public comment. It is a key risk for ICANN to find itself in contradiction with international law.

--> Exercise is not to eliminate risks – it is to ask whether existing accountability measures give the community the power to hold Board accountable to way it reacts to this stress-test.

ACTION ITEM: Report on contingencies we cannot mitigate. 

ACTION ITEM: ST-WP to identify stress tests for discussion on 17 March.

Legal Subteam

León Sanchez reported that the Legal Subteam held one call last week to incorporate some of the concerns raised. Although the document was not shortened, language and questions were refined. WP1 and WP2 should provide questions to be incorporated into legal document. The jurisdiction issue was widely discussed: although all agree that concerns should be addressed, the Subteam also agreed that this would be an issue for WS2. If addressed as part of WS1, could be facing derailing of whole process. This agreement will be put forward for CCWG agreement. The CWG has announced engagement with law firm to provide legal advice. The Legal Subteam will hold a call with one of the shortlisted firms. The possibility of engaging with same law firm is high but the Legal Subteam needs to go through own process. 

ACTION ITEM: WP1 and WP2 to provide legal questions to Legal Subteam.

Feedback

- Will question on jurisdiction be put out to the CCWG?

- Explanation about California law limitations are needed.  Get started on the work asap.

- It would simplify work moving forward if CCWG goes with same law firm. Recommendation to go for it unless good reason not to. 

ACTION ITEM: León to confirm legal subteam decision

- Which areas of enquiry will be in WS1 and WS2? Once legal firm is selected, CCWG should have opportunity to determine WS1 and WS2.

3. Timeline

Mathieu Weill stated that a common understanding of Istanbul meeting is needed. An agenda has not been produced yet because the most efffective way will be for Cochairs to build agenda on issues arising out of WPs and items we will need to reach consensus on so that can leave Istanbul with understanding of what will be put out for public comment. WP outcomes should be circulated a few days before the meeting so that the CCWG can review materials before the meeting. Ideas need to socialized prior the meeting as well, including compact mission, AOC discussion (what should be included and how), WS1 measures, review and redress. Aware that no legal feedback yet but need to work on initial feedback we have from past interactions and raise questions with legal doubts. It is a risk but no other option.

The Group will discuss in Istanbul whether changing timeline or not. Objective is to get as much work done as possible: i.e. testing level of agreement in Istanbul rather than discussing extending timelines etc. It is important to focus on work and requirements - if go into details, will derail timeline. Compact will be on the Istanbul agenda.

ACTION ITEM: Co-chairs to include agenda item regarding next steps for the group and timeline in last section of Istanbul agenda.  

Feedback:

- We need to be careful about aligning expectations about what final output needs to be and what the output sent to Board is, what we are going to get public comment on in April etc. By end of Istanbul meeting, we will know if issues will closed: prepare enough details.

--> There is no reasonable expectations from us to provide fully fleshed Bylaws changes. 

- Public comment is currently 30 days. 

4. Proposed Structure of Public Comment Report

The Co-chairs are working on a structure for the report, populating the sections and would welcome the CCWG's feedback. Thomas Rickert walked the Group through the proposed architecture. 

Feedback 

- We need to be mindful of readability of report: structure report in a way that is readable very quickly using appendices. Think about best way to get feedback from communities. 

5.  A.O.B 

Action Items

ACTION ITEM: Mathieu to report back to the CCWG on conversation with Thomas Schneider in due course.

ACTION ITEM: Jordan to touch base with Keith Drazek on WP1-5B.

ACTION ITEM: Obtain further feedback from the Group during the week. (Feedback on CCT-RT)

ACTION ITEM: Obtain further feedback from the Group during the week. (Feedback on WHOIS)

ACTION ITEM: Review the WP2 document https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888740/Work%20Item%20List%20and%20Principles%20WP2%20PDF.pdf?version=4&modificationDate=1425965515000&api=v2  and socialize with your respective groups before the next call to ensure the Group is fully aligned with WP2 suggestions.

ACTION ITEM: WP1 and WP2 rapporteurs to synchronize to avoid duplication and clarify where the principles discussion is taking place.

ACTION ITEM: CCWG to review ST-WP work - https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52232556/Applying%20Stress%20Tests%20%5BDraft%20v7%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425965091000&api=v2 

ACTION ITEM: Report on contingencies we cannot mitigate. 

ACTION ITEM: ST-WP to identify stress tests for discussion on 17 March.

ACTION ITEM: WP1 and WP2 to provide legal questions to Legal Subteam.

ACTION ITEM: León to confirm legal subteam decision

 ACTION ITEM: Co-chairs to include agenda item regarding next steps for the group and timeline in last section of Istanbul agenda.  

---------------------------------------------------------

Recent exchange of emails between

CCWG on Accountability Co-Chairs and GAC Chair Thomas Schneider

 

Von: Mathieu Weill [mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. März 2015 17:43
An: Olga Cavalli; Suzanne Radell; Julia Katja Wolman; brumark@telia.comalice@apc.org; Schneider Thomas BAKOM
Cc: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert; Adam Peake
Betreff: Engagement request from CCWG regarding GAC decision making

Dear GAC members of the CCWG Accountability, Dear Thomas,

[Cc: CCWG Co-chairs]

As you are aware, the CCWG Accountability has identified a number of contingencies and is applying stress tests to its proposals to check how they would mitigate them.

Consistent with the principle set out by the NTIA that the transition proposals should not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization solution, one of the identified contingency is currently defined as such :

Governments in ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC) amend their operating procedures to change from consensus decisions to majority voting for advice to ICANN’s board.

Consequence: Under current bylaws, ICANN must consider and respond to GAC advice, even if that advice were not supported by consensus. [...]

While investigating whether the measures currently proposed by the CCWG would provide adequate mitigation, concerns were raised that, despite the ability for the community to veto a Board decision, changes in the GAC decision making rules might infringe on the principle set out by the NTIA.

It was proposed within the CCWG that a mitigating measure might be to amend Icann Bylaws so that the provision of article XI 2.1.j of the Bylaws (duly taking into account GAC Advice) would only apply to consensus advice (see current proposal here :
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/52888421/Accountability%20Mechanism%20Template%20WP1%204A%20-%20GAC%20consensus.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425289292000&api=v2).

Some similarity could be drawn out from the gNSO policy recommendations Bylaw provisions (Annex A, 9.a) where supermajority votes from the gNSO can only be vetoed by the Board if there is a 2/3 majority to do so.

We are aware of the high sensitivity of this question within the GAC as well as with the community. The GAC is also one of the chartering organizations of the CCWG Accountability. Therefore our group wishes to engage with the GAC to identify how we can meet both the NTIA requirements and a solution that is consistent with the GAC expectations.

Ideally, we would welcome inputs via GAC appointed members to the CCWG and/or specific discussions between ourselves.

Best regards,
Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill Co-chairs, CCWG Accountability
_______________________________________________
gac mailing list
gac@gac.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gac

 

2015-03-05 19:59 GMT+01:00 <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>:

Dear Mathieu

Thank you for your message of this afternoon.

I have to admit that - after reading your message -  I am not fully clear about what exactly is expected of the GAC as a response to your message.

First of all, I am not clear about whether the contingency set is related to Work Stream 1 (accountability related to the IANA function)
or 2 (general accountability of ICANN's processes) of the CCWG work.

If it was related to Work Stream 1, then it might be helpful to signal a little more concretely what the role of the GAC as a body (and not individual member states) currently is or would be in the future with regard to the IANA transition and in what way any changes of the GAC operating principles with regard to its decision making might actually affect any processes regarding IANA stewardship. Or is it related to WS2? This is not really clear at least to me, so I would be helpful if you could clarify this.

Another question would be whether the CCWG has taken into account the difference between constuencies that are actually tasked with the development of policies - like the GNSO or the CCNSO - and bodies that have an advisory role like the GAC. As the GAC is not policy making but an advisory body, the board is only ask to take GAC advice "duly into account". It does not say that GAC advice "has to be followed". So it would be helpful to inform us how this different role is reflected in the "stress test" deliberations.

And it is also not clear on what basis you assume that a change in the operating principles in the GAC would lead to a higher or lower influence of governments in the GAC, given the fact that GAC advice remains advice no matter how this advice is developed. So it would be helpful to inform us about the basis of such assumptions.

And finally I would like to inform you that GAC advice to the ICANN board can take different forms: it can be a communication informing the board that all GAC members request that something should be done or not be done. But it can also be advice that informs the board that some GAC members have strong feelings with regard to a particular issue or a particular decision while others haven't. This is also a form of advice and it is a consensus in the sense that the GAC agrees on informing the board that there are different views or sensitivities in the GAC on a particular issue. An example of this was the GAC advice on whether or not to accept the .xxx application a few years ago. So my question to you would be if you could clarify whether the CCWG is aware of this and, if so, how this is taken into account in the CCWG deliberations?

Thank you for helping us to see more clearly about what the basis of the deliberations in the CCWG and the expectations with regard to a feedback to your message are.

Best regards

Thomas

----------------------------------------------------------

CCWG ACCT Meeting #15 (3 March)

Wiki page of the CCWG: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability

All meetings information: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings

Action Items

Action (co-chair) Can the advisors provide advice on international law and also corporate governance related to removal

Action to discuss on regular calls with the CWG co-chairs.

Action: Co-chairs to prepare the next meeting, agenda to include the structure of the report and of the F2F meeting. 

Action: Staff to provide a skeleton for the report.

Notes

WP2

  •  Followed the triggered and un-triggered format, and this demarkation broadly work  On  2 calls and coordination with Jordan WP1, moved work on ICANN limited scope to WP2.  
  • Tasks between there 2 groups compared and allocated. 
  • Document transparency, all are part of WP1
  • WP2 includes modifications, enhancements, review of exist triggered mechanisms.  
  • These include Ombudsman, reconsideration independent review and suggestions from the community related to these.
  • Plus covers the compact with the community and statement of ICANN's mission  and standards to carrot mission, as discussed in Singapore. 
  • Holding weekly meetings, planning sub-group calls, and possibly a meeting on Sunday afternoon in Istanbul to prepare for the week..
  • WP2 will enhance existing mechanisms, ensure that the Board can be held to its bylaws, prevent mission creep etc.
  • Question: When do we ask for reconsideration, what do we mean by redress, and need to agree on a definition of "community".
  • Definitions will be in the final report, build on initial discussions in Frankfurt
  •  There are attempts to define "community" in the scoping document: communities are being discussed in respect at standing, and other with decisions making power.
  • WP2 proposing 5 new sub-groups.  Work of the groups will be on the WIKI, and referred to in transcripts and notes of WP2 calls
  • Light-weight structures might be preferred.  

WP1

  • Weekly meetings.  Discussions about, removal of directors and defining GAC consensus.  Draft templates available for most, where not they are topics transferred to WP2 or in progress. 
  • Looking at mechanisms that make these powers work:  issue of statutory members, members, supervisory board etc are the right way to make the powers work being discussed.
  • Example: removal of directors (note yet discussed by the working group)
  • Any number or all Directors might be removed.
  • Assumption controlling is whatever is recommended in terms of  CCWG
  • A new mechanism
  • The effect of a director being removed.  
  • Standard of the decision, objective standards are often not specified.  Suggestion should follow same standards as the ICANN Board currently has to remove a Director.  
  • Do not expect resolution before F2F
  • Contributes to all accountability dimensions, makes the Director more aware of all accountability mechanisms and contingencies. 
  • A director appointed by a particular community, should that electing entity be the only one able to remove the director?  Or removal by others with the support or no objection by that SO/AC 
  • NomCom appointed directors, may require a modifies process 

Action (co-chair): Can the advisors provide advice on international law and also corporate governance related to removal

  • What infringement might trigger the process? That this is a measure of last resort
  • With each power there will be different triggers. Suggest powers should be attached to existing mechanisms, or one shared new group. 
  • Initial proposal was to spill the entire board.  Extreme and very difficult to trigger.  Threat of use, presence enough  Now making a simple concept complex, picking off single directors, objective standards of the
    community rather than super-majority. 
  • WP1 will distinguish between pilling the board and powers if the individual SO/AC.  Need to have graduated scale, or risk the only option is to escalate to the higher standard.
  • Notion of the "big stick" for WS1 topics.  Recall of whole board is that big stick. removal of individual directors left as WS2.   
  • GAC advice and how the bylaws require the Board to consider this advice.  
  • GAC set out its own operating principles., is able to lower or raise the threshold for advice. 
  • Suggestion of the current wording of GAC principles about consensus advice, that it is that consensus advice that triggers this reconciliation by the Board.  If the GAC then changes its standard of advice, 
    how that advice is considered by the board is a matter for the community. Codifies the status quo in the ICANN bylaws. 

Stress Test WP 

  • Stress test 1 and 2, combined.
  • Note: intention to apply a test against a package of proposed accountability measures, so premature to apply, but is proving useful to apply to these drafts. 
  • 1 and 2:  IANA root zone change authority/delegation authority fails to function.  Need to engage with the CWG. 

Action: to discuss on regular calls with the CWG co-chairs.

  • Test 24. Mission creep, CEO expands or extends ICANN's mission, lacking community consensus  
  • Loss of confidence is ICANN and ability to perform technical functions. 
  • Loss of confidence is ICANN and ability to perform technical functions.  If in strategic plan or budget then community non-binding comment, and CA AG has authority if an organization acts outside its mission.  What powers doe the CA AG have? 
  • Under a majority or supermajority, the community might block the budget.  Mid-year, if the the community power to veto a Board decision.  Or triggering an independent review, but to what standard.  Collectively the proposed mechanisms seem adequate.  
  •  Is the golden bylaw is addressed by WP2 in mission and standards
  • Test 15.   ICANN terminates its legal presence in a nation in response to litigation. 
    community standing to veto a board decision could prevent the board on moving.  AoC in the bylaws would mean ICANN is subject to legal action by another party. Seems adequate protection against the contingency 

Legal Subteam

  • Legal scoping document, working through a number of drafts.  Expect to narrow the issues and questions down by the end of the week.
  • Particularly aware of issues of interest to the  ccTLD community
  • External law firm, prep calls with a short list of firms, two more interviews this week 
  • Anti-trust issues will be considered in the scoping document. 
  • Jurisdiction: expect further discussion with Advisors 

Timeline

  • Working towards f2f in Istanbul and readiness of the draft for public comment on April 6.
  • What is the structure of the F2F Istanbul, so we can play the work of the subgroups.  

Action: Co-chairs to prepare the next meeting, agenda to include the structure of the report and of the F2F meeting. 

Action: Staff to provide a skeleton for the report..

Documents Presented

WP1 Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/puvneyq

WP2 Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/p9yemfx

ST-WP Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/mye8o3e

Legal Subt Drafts - http://tinyurl.com/kajxlc4

Timeline - http://tinyurl.com/kd2u3b7  

--------------------------------------------------------

CCWG ACCT Meeting #14 (24 February)

 Adobe Connect recording:  

https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p2h0wpdxdd4/

Notes, recordings and transcripts:

 https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=52889476

 

 Activity report from Work Parties

 

WP 1 

- WP1 has developed a draft work plan, has agreed on working methods, is working with an aggressive deadline and plans to deliver WP output by March 11. 

- Volunteers are developing templates for each power and mechanism. Current gaps will be picked up. Editors will review content.

- Triggered and non triggered categorization has been applied to items in paper, resulting in an initial allocation between two Working parties. WP1 is awaiting WP2 feedback to allocate tasks.

- WP1 has structured mechanisms around powers and finds the accountability mechanism template challenging in some ways: some questions are more relevant to mechanisms and vice-versa. It envisions to produce recommendations on how to improve it. It was commented that questions would not have same relevance to both categorizations and will be reviewed and addressed as progress is made. 

- It was observed that a mechanism gives structure to power and there is need for a procedure and vehicle to support the power. Threshold (consensus/full consensus) also comes into play. 

- The recommendation is to commence with the analysis of powers and to attach them with mechanisms.

- The WP1 walked the CCWG through proposed Bylaws additions on amending ICANN Bylaws to incorporate AOC reviews. The text is merged with periodic structural reviews text that currently exists in Bylaws. Edits to the AoC review process were also suggested. Feedback to suggestions included: should Bylaws give a prescriptive headcount? Stakeholder Groups being subordinates to a structure, is it really necessary to include them? ; It is important to reflect diversity and balance; While support for selections made by SO/ACs, lack of diversity was flagged as a downside and an aspect that could be preserved through selectors; Specifics may change in the future. With the objective of stable Bylaws, consider high level principles that can be included in the Bylaws instead, along with a reference to an external document where specifics would be given. In this approach a very high threshold on ability to change that document would be added; A Bylaws categorization  was proposed: 1) fundamental and constitutional provisions (stable); 2 functional and operation (less stable); 3) rules relations to elections etc; consider more lengthy timelines.

- No decision will be made on the call. 

---

WP2

- WP2 has produced a revised scoping document to reflect changes and results of WP 1 work on triggered and non-triggered. Scoping documents for WP1 and WP2 are harmonized.

- Close coordination with WP 1 is needed.

- A work plan and working methods (based on WP1 modus operandi) has been circulated. Standards of work will be discussed. 

- WP2 plans to have a document available by face-to-face meeting (17 March tentatively)

---

ST-WP

- ST-WP wrapped up presentation of  stress test 18 (If GAC changes operating procedures from consensus to majority voting). A contributor suggested looking into the preliminary injunction (IRP) regarding delegation of Persian and noted absence of GAC advice and a group of GAC members invoking IRP. Objections were raised by another contributor i.e. outside CCWG mandate and references made to the South Africa communiqué.

ACTION ITEM: Becky Burr and Kavouss Arasteh to further discuss offline

- ST-WP walked the group through  stress test 17 (ICANN adds a new TLD in spite of SSR concerns). Feedback included: What is our definition of success within context of stress tests?; Stress tests are going to be measures of degrees -t say yes/no answers will be rare. 

- No decision will be made on the call. 

ACTION ITEM: Jonathan Zuck to suggest how we could change format 

 

3. Legal Subteam Update

- Questions have been suggested and the Subteam is awaiting questions from WP1 and WP2.

- Robin is working on framing questions into a letter that can be delivered to law firm that will be selected. Background and context will be included.

- Call with final list of law firms will be held.  Update on final candidate that will be put forward for hiring by ICANN will be shared asap. 

- Questions are divided into 3 categories: 1) corporate governance; 2)jurisdictional matters; 3) protection of ICANN, antitrust and other law suits.

- Given concerns about ccTLD delegation and redelegations remedies (e.g. dispute resolution), feedback is needed.

- Feedback included: formulate questions to be list of powers and ask for mechanisms that can accomplish powers as opposed to putting mechanisms up; frame questions using how to trigger response (as opposed to yes/no); lawyers need to know what our requirements are so that can advise what empowerment can be implemented. In context of jurisdictional: global survey of jurisdiction can take ages and cost a fortune; changing jurisdiction will make transition impossible: the group needs to decide if these questions are for WS1; Keep jurisdictional issues open: are there any arbitration or international panel can go to for jurisdictional issues, is there a way to get step into resolution with something simpler to begin with; Jurisdiction might be too complicated, keep it simple (recall Board, Independent Appeals mechanism etc).  

ACTION ITEM: Legal subteam to review and refine questions and determine whether WS1/WS2 

 

4. F2F meeting

- Confirmed for 23-24 March 2015 at Hilton Istanbul Bomonti Hotel & Conference Center.

- Agenda will be circulated in time.

- Discussing May F2F meeting in coordination with CWG-stewardship leadership.

 

5. A.O.B 

The CCWG discussed removal of individual Board members with a note that architecture needs to be revisited if allowing for entire Board or individual Board. Feedback includes:

- Current Bylaws allow that Board can dismiss individual board members if CoI. Individual removal might lead to unhealthy environment, create a witch hunt. 

- Be careful to not penalize whole group if one group is concerned.

- Spilling of Board is a nuclear option and disruptive step. We are seeking incremental, implementable ways to challenge Board decision. The community does not have anybody that represents their interest. We need ability to override and challenge decision.

- Board members are appointed because they share a mindset – if not in line with mindset, should be able to remove this Board member.  There is also the case of NomCom appointed members: ability to remove them is needed.  Significant consensus among SO/ACs would be needed – the member would be removed for serious reasons. On the other hand, removal of entire Board is a whole set of issues (interim etc).

- A mechanism is needed for the three above: spilling entire board is not disruptive as long as there is a defined method; spilling an individual Board members is a SG/C decision, not a community decision to make. Recall mechanism within process defined for NomCom would take a lot more time. Vote of non-confidence on the Board or all the other need to be in WS1.

- Predictability and stability is important: recall of Board members will undermine predictability/stability. Consider reducing term and don't reelect.

- Recall Board members if not acting in global public interest rather than if not acting in segmented interest of a community. Consider community capture (especially a segment of community).

- We should not allow community removal of one Board member in particular – must come from the concerned community.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview of the discussions after ICANN 52 Singapore 

Thanks to Julia Katja Wolman from Dennmark for this report

At the ICANN meeting in Singapore, the CCWG Accountability had two working sessions on Monday 9/2 and Thursday 12/2. In addition there have been 2 conference calls this week. You can find all notes/transcripts and audio files on the wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetingscv. The Co-Chairs have developed a useful presentation with a graphic illustration of the status of the work of the CCWG Accountability (PDF attached). I strongly recommend that you take a look it.

GAC members present provided input from the GAC Singapore communiqué and mentioned that from a government perspective important questions would be the role of governments and how to ensure inclusiveness in the new set up.

The main work of the CCWG accountability is now taking place in two sub groups:

  • Working Party 1 (WP 1) is developing proposals that will empower the community. WP1 will now deal with what is now called "non-triggered" accountability mechanisms (i.e. powers or mechanisms for the ICANN community that form part of regular planned processes  - e.g. approving or rejecting budget and merging the AOC reviews into ICANN bylaws). In this regard important questions to be discussed further are how the community could be represented and empowered to override decisions of the ICANN Board. WP 1 has developed a “Scope, Powers and Mechanisms Working Paper” that outlines the proposed mechanisms. All WP 1 documents can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+Draft+Documents.  
  • Working Party 2 (WP 2) is developing proposals for new review and redress mechanisms – now labelled "triggered" mechanisms (i.e. triggered by some event e.g.  removal of the Board member and appeals mechanisms).  The WP 2 has developed two working documents that outline the mechanisms. All documents from WP 2 can be found here:https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP+2+Draft+Documents.

ACTION: we would welcome any comments/proposals to the main documents (attached) with proposals for new mechanisms. Are there any items you do not agree with or items you would like to add?  The work is progressing rather fast so we would appreciate your comments as soon as possible.

New proposal regarding GAC advice

The CCWG has also been working on a list of contingencies for stress testing (See revised list herehttps://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+Draft+Documents). Contingency # 18 describes the situation of what would happen if the GAC would decide to change its decision making procedures (Operating Principles) from consensus to majority voting. In turn, this discussion has triggered a proposal for a new mechanism that would entail changes to ICANN’s bylaws to only take into account GAC advice that is based on consensus. The proposal is as follows: “Amend ICANN bylaws (Section XI 1j) to give due deference only to GAC consensus advice, and add a definition of “consensus”, such as “consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection.”  

The proposal further explained: “[I]f the GAC issues advice to the Board that was approved by a method with a lower threshold than current GAC consensus, such advice will not be given the same level of deference as consensus GAC advice is given under Section XI.2.1.j of the ICANN Bylaws (excerpted below).  The Board will still be free to consider and to adopt such non-consensus advice; it just won't have to follow the rubric of XI.2.1.j.  Specifically, it could reject such advice by majority vote, and would not need to go into consultation to find a "mutually acceptable solution."  Notably, while this would require a change to the ICANN Bylaws, it would not require any change to the GAC's own procedures.” For your reference I have attached the email thread with the background and the proposal.

We fully understand the need to have a stress test for such a situation, including mitigating capture but it is our general view that any such proposal should not lower the current threshold for the obligation of the ICANN Board to duly taking into account GAC advice.  

ACTION: The GAC will be consulted with regard to this proposal but we would be grateful for any input. Comments with regard to the list of contingencies are also welcome of course.

The discussions of how to empower the community vis á vis the ICANN Board, include transforming ICANN into a membership organization or establishing a supervisory Board. The issues of how these new structures would be implemented will be sent to the independent legal advisor (not yet contracted). In the current state of the discussion - when we do not yet have an outline of the pros and cons of the different proposals - providing useful comments may be a bit premature. We will, however, return when the proposals become more concrete. But please feel free to provide any views you may have – also with regard to this issue – we would appreciate any input.

Next steps:

  • According to the timeline a proposal from the CCWG Accountability should be ready by mid-June before the next ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires 19-25 June 2015 and GAC as a chartering organization is expected to support/approve it.
  • The next face to face meeting is scheduled to take place 23-24 March 2015. Place has not been decided yet.
  • Weekly conference calls

US politics

In Singapore, Larry Strickling underlined that the NTIA would only consider a coordinated and complete transition plan with the necessary accountability mechanisms in place and he urged the community (CWG and CCWG) to develop simple solutions. He emphasized the importance of developing stress tests to assess if the new proposed mechanisms would work well, which he pointed out was a very important issue for Congress. Strickling also advocated for a simple model for the new set up. The quest for a simple solution was echoed by many other stakeholder groups in the community.

After Singapore Larry Strickling has made a statement, which you can read here: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholders-continue-historic-work-internet-dns-transition-icann-singapore-meeting    

Moreover, a hearing in the Senate will take place 25 February 2015. Read the announcement here:http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=683924ae-83d7-4bf4-922a-cdecb9556ba9&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a   

Should you be interested, ICANN staff write weekly summaries of the discussions. They are uploaded here:https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Weekly+Summary+-+Mailing+List+Discussions    

If colleagues have any additions/corrections to make please feel free to share as well.

Sessions during ICANN 52 in Singapore

https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CCWG ACCT Meeting #13 (17 February)

 Transcript:  
Transcript CCWG ACCT #13 17 FEB.doc
Transcript CCWG ACCT #13 17 FEB.pdf
Recordings
The Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p6i04lcl2fy/
The audio recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-acct-17feb15-en.mp3

 WP1 &WP2

 Recognized the need to ensure clear demarcation between WP1 and WP2 and structuring of their work. 

  • Proposing accountability and escalation mechanisms and how those could be achieved. 
  • These accountability mechanisms would be triggered and non-triggered.  There are things that happen as part of ICANN's normal process (non-triggered , e.g. budget processes) and those that get triggered by an action or lack of an action by ICANN.

  • Building into the process the opportunity to re-adjust as required.
  • Close coordination  between the two groups including on deadlines.
  • And will provide a full list of these powers and mechanisms.

"Volunteers" any member and participant may join, observers status remains unaltered (note, observers can change their status)

- Accountability mechanism template:

Template to set out the basic parameters for accountability mechanisms.

Action:  request feedback from colleagues on the template and our processes for further work and our standardized approach

 WP-ST 

Consolidated inventory of 25 contingencies are being stress tested against the consistent methodology, review of progress and continued examples from those presented in Singapore.  Call for comments on:

14, Termination of AoC?  None

16. ICANN participation in programs beyond technical mandate? None

22. Failure to comply with bylaws or refusal to accept a decisions of a redress mechanism  (remedy, threat of board recall).  First reading, carry over to CCWG call  #14.

Example, stress test 18. 

GAC advice to the ICANN Board. Changes in GAC voting processes.  

Suggestion that if GAC moved to majority voting, this would not carry the deference of consensus.  Suggests a risk capture of ICANN processes by a single stakeholder.

Action:  Proposal to engage with GAC on stress test item 18 and review on the next call (Co-chair plus Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon Orr)

 

Stress test 19. 

Redelegation of gTLD, with the action challenged in court by the registry. Which instruction does the root zone maintainer follow, IANA/ICANN process or court? 

Action (Staff) to ask expert advisors to consider cross-border law issues related to this stress test and how to mitigate this risk?

How does recognition of national governments help provide ICANN with broad protections?

Action Items

Action:  CCWG colleagues to provide feedback on the template, and on processes for further work and our standardized approach.

Action:  Proposal to engage with GAC on stress test item 18 and review on the next call (Co-chair plus Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon Orr)

Action (Staff) to ask expert advisors to consider cross-border law issues related to this stress test and how to mitigate this risk?  

Documents Presented

ICG-CWG-CCWG_timeline_20150129.pdf

Accountability Mechanism Template 17 Feb.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CCWG ACCT Session 10 call on 03 February

Transcripts and recordings: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51415000

Action Items

- Encourage your communities to attend the engagement session

- Staff to post updated list of sessions on wiki 

- Rapporteurs to confirm availability to join Chairs during engagement session

- Staff to assemble number of sessions where engagement with communities will take place

- Working Parties to send meeting requirements (if any) as soon as possible 

- Co-chairs to ask for Board expectations and to coordinate with Bruce Tonkin (Board liaison) 

- Circulate proposed agenda to list

- Read compilation of documents/information in preparation for Singapore sessions and identify any gaps 

- Robin to send synopsis of a Bylaws mechanism

- WP2 is trying to organize its first call/meeting - a doodle poll will be circulated.

- ST-WP to provide draft examples in anticipation of Singapore discussions to understand what is meant by stress tests and collect feedback

- Be prepared for Singapore (agenda, invitations) 

- Read all documents

- Keep respective groups informed of progress

- Continue debates on mailing list 

Notes

Update from interactions with CWG 

- Response to CWG has been circulated. CCWG is now expecting feedback. 

- CCWG-CWG leadership discussed how the groups may align thinking in terms of timeline, overall plan. 

- CWG will issue a progress report in anticipation of Singapore

Preparing Singapore 

     a. Reminder of sessions / logistics

- Remote participation is available for all sessions

- Rapporteurs: join Co-chairs on stage during engagement session 

- Thursday session will be also used to recap various messages received during week 

Action Items

- Encourage your communities to attend the engagement session

- Staff to post updated list of sessions on wiki 

- Rapporteurs to confirm availability to join Chairs during engagement session

- Staff to assemble number of sessions where engagement with communities will take place

- Working Parties to send meeting requirements (if any) as soon as possible 

     b. Agenda /topics for Board meeting 

- Topics for session with Board include: timeline; how CCWG proposal will be handled, any anticipated reasons why a proposal/part of a proposal might be refused, and the anticipated process following any such refusal; update on two WPs (communication empowerment - Review & Redress)

- Meeting with the Board will be posted on the meeting schedule along with remote participation details. 

Action Item

- Co-chairs to ask for Board expectations and to coordinate with Bruce Tonkin (Board liaison) 

- Circulate proposed agenda to list   

      c. Review of engagement material provided before meeting 

Action Item

- Read compilation of documents/information in preparation for Singapore sessions and identify any gaps 

Update WP1/WP2 

       a. By rapporteurs 

- WP1 has begun analyzing the mindmap and collecting requirements of inventory against identified mindmap requirements. 

- 4 suggestions for structures that would empower the community were catalogued: 1) ad hoc SO/AC; 2) permanent community WG; 3) statutory members; 4)Supervisory Board

- Initial draft will be shared in advance of Singapore

- The WP is looking into scheduling a call to discuss modus operandi and establish a calendar of work. The WP indicated that an end date on WP work would be useful. End of March 2015 was flagged as the expected delivery date. 

Action item

- Robin to send synopsis of a Bylaws mechanism

- WP2 is trying to organize its first call/meeting - a doodle poll will be circulated.

    b. Update stress test WP 

- The wiki page captures the 25 contingencies merged into 5 different groups. A table serves to track where contingencies are. ST-WP will potentially hold a meeting in Singapore. 

- Proposal to run stress tests against mechanisms - determine whether prevent consequences of stress test or mitigate/react

   c. Ideally, discussion around first set of answers to the contingency questions 

- Proposal is to start with stress tests and determine how the existing mechanism reacts and how envisioned mechanism would react. 

- Suggestions of a gap analysis approach and an Exist & sufficient - Exist & insufficient approach were made.

Action Item

- ST-WP to provide draft examples in anticipation of Singapore discussions to understand what is meant by stress tests and collect feedback

Legal advice update

- The task force has started building questions that should be asked to legal experts and awaiting questions from working parties.

- A shortlist was requested from CWG (awaiting reply); the group is coordinating with CWG on California law restrictions. 

- Outcome will be shared with the group as soon as received. 

-The CCWG welcomed advisor Lee Bygrave.

A.O.B

The following desired outcomes  for Singapore were identified:

  • ·       Share advancement of work (WPs, requirements, contingencies
  • ·       Ensure we receive feedback from community, assess, adjust (as needed)
  • ·       Ensure timelines are appropriately synchronized (including with ICANN Board) 
  • ·       Make substantive progress during two work sessions 
  • ·       Ensure we are aligned with community's thinking

Closing Remarks 

Action Items:

- Be prepared for Singapore (agenda, invitations) 

- Read all documents

- Keep respective groups informed of progress

- Continue debates on mailing list 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CCWG ACCT #9 call on 27 January 

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414998

CWG update & joint statement

WS1 requirements : organizing further work

Two groups (mailing lists are set up): 

  • ·       WP1: Review & Redress (coordinated by Becky Burr). 
  • ·       WP2: Community Empowerment (coordinated by Jordan Carter)

Two key deliverables for WP1 and WP2: 

  • ·       Scoping document based on WS1 requirements coming out of Frankfurt
  • ·       Identification of key underlying issues to discuss such as composition, decision making methodologies (threshold, consensus, ...), standing ground, standards of review, cost, delays, ...
  • ·       When those are defined, then the group can move to developing list of questions for legal advice detailing expected requirements, and asking for proposed mechanisms, in the form "how can we... ?"

Action: send out Call for Volunteers. Please send a note to Grace if you would like to volunteer. 

 Legal Advice

  • ·       Legal Advice subteam also has a mailing list and has started to work based on CWG document. 
  • ·       The timeline that we are working with is very aggressive. In Frankfurt, we discussed that we would get initial response from ICANN legal as we develop our questions document. 
  • ·       No deviance from the path discussed in Frankfurt.,
  • ·       CCWG will attempt as an ideal to use the same firm as used by the CWG, although scoping documents will be different.
  • ·       So as not wait for the firm to be selected, or wait for the scoping document to be finalized, the first step is to ask for advice from ICANN legal team on a board set of initial questions to help the CCWG understand if it is on a useful track.  This will be checked by the external firm.. 

Contingencies : organising further work (inc. feedback from Board committee)

  • ·       Agreed on a list of 21 contingencies.  Agreed to provide additional analysis to these by responding to a list of questions, after discussion of an appropriate lists if questions.
  • ·       Request to the Board Risk Committee of the contingencies they use as part of their risk management, a communication has been received from the committee.  Comparison shows a couple of items to be updates. 

Next steps to answer the various questions: 

  • ·       Are there existing remedies in place ? How robust are these remedies ? 
  • ·       Could addressing the contingency be achieved through amending existing accountability mechanisms or is creating new ones necessary ?
  • ·       How relevant is the threat to the transition of the IANA stewardship ? ie how does the transition affect the likelihood of the threat, or the severeness of the consequences ? 

Reframe the questions and ask whether contingencies from Board Risk are either in WS1 or WS2 based on our Charter.  

Action: Add a specific contingency part to the communication materials that we'll edit in Singapore. 

Timeline update

40 days of Public Comment

Outreach plan for Singapore

  • ·       Slide deck or briefing document?
  • ·       Sent a summary of mailing list discussions sent to the CCWG list 
  • ·       Please let Adam know if you would like a briefing document and we'll see how we can assist. 

Action: prepare a short summary and slide deck that CCWG can share during next week's meeting and use for Singapore. 

Action: Adam to talk to GAC Chair and Staff Support to address timing. 

AOB

  • ·       Timing of F2F in March (Kavouss)

Closing remarks

  • ·       Outstanding progress in Frankfurt, but still a lot to do in short time. 
  • ·       Press on with various work groups
  • ·       Elaborate documents and build on substance
  • ·       Next Call: 12:00 UTC on Tuesday 3 Feb

 Action Items

 

Action: Add a specific contingency part to the communication materials that we'll edit in Singapore. 

 

Action: prepare a short summary and slide deck that CCWG can share during next week's meeting and use for Singapore. 

 

Action: Adam to talk to GAC Chair and Staff Support to address timing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Face to face meeting in Frankfurt, Germany 

19 - 20 January 2015

Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability)
Chairs' Statement: Thomas Rickert - León Sanchez - Mathieu Weill

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51419434
 

Update from CCWG Accountability meeting in Frankfurt 19-20 January 2015 (Denmark)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conference Call #6 (13 January 2015)

Complete info about the call in the WG wiki page, see:

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414987

General comments:

  • Six advisors have been appointed by the PEG.  
  • Jan Scholte, will join the F2F in Frankfurt.  A search for an international legal expert is ongoing.
  • Independent legal advice on California law - discussion with ICANN staff ongoing, the action is in progress

Among the different subworking groups there are intense exchange of ideas and opinions about definitions:

  • What do we mean by consensus?  
  • What is the "community"?  
  • Who would the community itself be accountable to?  
  • Balance of different types of powers (judicial, legal, executive). 
  • What happens if some ICANN accountability mechanisms disappear with the transition. 
  • What would we consider "committed to", in what form the commitment might take. 

Public Interest discussion:

  • Who are the stakeholders in directly affected, indirectly affected, and parties affecting ICANN?
  • The purpose of ICANN's accountability: (1) compliance purposes, (2) acceptable to achieved certain level of performance.  In addition (3) that ICANN should be accountable to comply with relevant legislation. (4) ICANN accountable to ensure its decisions are in the interest of all stakeholders.
  • Preferred mapping of stakeholder and whether to use NETmundial? 
  • The NETmundial definition is not felt as appropriate for CCWG work.   Appropriate categorization of indirectly affected parties and others, particularly the impact on ccTLDs.

Next steps

Further work will be done in relation with different defintions.

Feedback is expected for the documents to be discussed in Frankfurt.

Announcement of publication of the High Level Statement, see:

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-01-09-en


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conference Call #5 (6 January 2015)

Complete info about the call in the WG wiki page, see:

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414985

 

WS1/WS2 

Action Item: co-chairs will recap WS1 and WS2 items on mailing list and review for approval at next meeting

 

Definitions / scoping: Co-chair "strawman" document shared on the list as a base-line reference for work going forward

Action Item: Colleagues to provide comments on the list in response to the document.  

Goal to develop a common view on scoping. 

Will be an agenda item for the next call and the Frankfurt meeting.  

 Public interest issues, ccTLD concerns and other issues to be identified.

 

Engagement with the CWG ICANN Board

  • Co-chairs have reached out to the ICG to confirm that the Jan 15 deadline was not applicable to CCWG. Confirmation that this was the case, no response necessary.
  • Written to Bruce Tonkin for deadlines and process for considered by the ICANN Board on how they will deal with recommendations from CCWG and CWG.  Questions discussed on the mailing list not included in this correspondence.  Will be an issued for a F2F meeting between the CCWG and Board in Singapore being arranged now.
  • Co-chairs asked if the CWG would find it useful if the CCWG issued high-level statements.  CWG response that this would be useful, preferably before CWG work-weeked (Jan 9, 10, 11).

High Level Statement

  • Suggestion is for the co-chairs to publish this high-level statement on behalf of the CCWG and to send to CWG co chairs.  The document is not for adoption on this call, but ideally within 48 hours in time for the CWG working weekend.

 Action Item: The High Level statement will be published on the CCWG list for further comment.


Expectations for the F2F Frankfurt 

  • Begin work on WS1
  • Finalized version of the scope and definition document 

Work Area 4 Update – Eric Brunner-Williams

  •  Eric send apologies for not attending the call.  Sent a document containing contingencies to the list.  Discussion about the main scenarios is essential.  Request comments made on the CCWG list.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Conference Call #4 on 30 December 

Complete info about the call in the WG wiki page, see:

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414982


Summary of the main actions and next steps

Update on WA1 (David Maher)

Working on expanding the current chart on Accountability inventory - Suggestions have been made to include contracts between ICANN and registries

Update on WA2 (Steve DelBianco): Review

Input from Public Comment and Categorize into Work Streams 1&2

Latest document for WA2 is https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/51414327/WorkArea2%20Accountability%20suggestions%20%5Bdraft%205.1%5D.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1419814534000&api=v2 

Update on WA3 (Avri Doria): CWG-CCWG Issue Matrix 

Wiki list is available here https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WA3+-+CWG-CCWG+issue+matrix

Update on WA4 (Mathieu on behalf of Eric Brunner-Williams): 

Still lacking an initial list, but there is enough material now to come up with a list for the next meeting. 


Coordination between CWG and ICG

1st draft of analysis was presented on CWG call. There are 16 different categories where there is analysis being conducted to try and get a better picture. There are other groups that are also doing analysis and will be contributed to the work. 

Expectations for the F2F In Frankfurt

24 participants have confirmed they will attend. 

Remote participation will be provided.

Expectations about the meeting: 

(1) Work to finalized on scope and definition of work (scope of accountability, who should ICANN be accountability to) Co-chairs working on a draft proposal

(2) Discussion of WS1 and WS2 and what the outcome of WS1 should be by the end of the F2F

(3) Some conclusions for WA1, 2 and contingencies agreed on by the end of the meeting.  So there is opportunity for community comment during the Singapore meeting.


CCWG will attempt to schedule a meeting with the Board in Singapore. One of the issues will be expectations of how the Board will treat the CCWG proposals.

Next Meeting: 6 January at 12:00 UTC. To view a full list of upcoming meetings, please see the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings 

 

.............................................................................................................................


Conference Call #3 on 23 December at 06:00 UTC

The following documents produced by Work Area 1 and Work Area 2 will be reviewed, it is expected that those attending the call have read the documents:


2. List of items from public comments (only the list, not the rationale and categorization, which is currently worked on) (WA 2)
In the case there are changes to be made to the documents, this should be expressed in the call.
Other actions during the call:
Discussion regarding interactions with Advisors (review PDF attached)
Coordination between CWG and ICG
Work Area Updates
  • WA1 – David Maher / Samantha Eisner
  • WA2 – Steve DelBianco
  • WA3 – Avri Doria
  • WA4 – Eric Brunner-Williams

Draft Work Plan: Steps and Milestones (review PDF attached)

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Meeting schedule: https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Meetings

Conference Call #2: notes and next steps: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51414838

 

WORK AREA UPDATES

Work Area 1: Existing Accountability Mechanisms (including ATRT 1 & ATRT 2 Recommendations)

Conference Call #2:

  • Lots of progress
  • ACTION: group to go to Subgroup1 wiki page and provide comments on the document before the next call
  • ACTION: Subgroup 1 will be repurposed to take on defining the term "accountability" in relation to the questions posed by Mathieu to the mailing list (David and Samantha are willing  to lead this effort)
  • The repurposed group will also Investigate the concept of public interest

Coordinators/Rapporteurs: David Maher / Samantha Eisner

Wiki Link: https://community.icann.org/x/YIMQAw
Mailing list address: ccwg-accountability1@icann.org
Public Archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability1/


Work Area 2: Review Input from Public Comment and Categorize Items into Work Streams 1 & 2

Deliverable: list of items that have been suggested and identify whether these belong in WS1, WS2 or both.

Conference Call #2:

Coordinator/Rapporteur: Steve DelBianco

Wiki Link: https://community.icann.org/x/YoMQAw
Mailing list address: ccwg-accountability2@icann.org
Public Archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability2/


Work Area 3: Review Issues Identified by CWG-Stewardship

(coordinator TBD) Avri Doria volunteers as coordinator

Link: https://community.icann.org/x/ZoMQAw
Mailing list address: ccwg-accountability3@icann.org
Public archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability3/


Work Area 4: Identify Contingencies (especially in relation to WS1)

Conference Call #2:

  • Goal of the group is to create a sufficiently broad list of contingencies and scenarios.  
  • Suggested to draw-up a list of generic contingency plan questions, and build on the BC stress tests.
  • ACTION: Colleagues to help build a comprehensive list of contigencies by the next call.

Coordinator/Rapporteur: Eric Brunner-Williams

 

 

GAC MEMBERS IN THE 4 WORK AREAS

Area I: Look at existing accountability mechanisms - Wiki Link: https://community.icann.org/x/YIMQAw- GAC members:

  • Par Brumark
  • Alice Munyua
  • Julia Wolman
  • Finn Petersen

Area II: Review input received in response to earlier public comment period on accountability and categorize items in WS1 and WS2.Wiki Link: https://community.icann.org/x/YoMQAw.  GAC member:

  • Suzanne Radell
  • Rafael Perez Galindo


Area III: Review Issues Identified by CWG-Stewardship. Wiki Link: https://community.icann.org/x/ZoMQAw.  GAC members:

  • Pedro Ivo Ferraz Da Silva
  • Camino Manjon
  • Lars-Erik Forsberg
  • Kavouss Arasteh

 

Area IV: Identify contingencies (especially in relation to WS1). Wiki Link: https://community.icann.org/x/aIMQAw. GAC members:

  • Olga Cavalli
  • Kavouss Arasteh